Talk:Phloem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 26 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rnh3u.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Treegirl89.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding functions section
Out of the entire 'Function' section, only one paragraph contains references. Also in the 'Function' section, some of the sentences could be reworded to increase accuracy. For example, sugars are transported to all parts of the plant not just the non-photosynthetic parts. In fact, a lot is moved or kept in the leaves (sugar sources) to maintain the pressure gradient. Additionally, photosynthetic tissues need to be listed as sources, not just the storage organs. In this section, the references are accurate and reliable but could be better supported with a couple other references conducted by Dr. Turgeon. Some of the other information is common knowledge and doesn’t necessarily need a reference; however, many of the statements do. The last paragraph says ‘citation needed’ but the information isn’t correct. Davidson et al. 2011 is the study that examined the correlation between growth form and phloem-loading strategy and they found that there is a “loose association” between the two but not a significant correlation. So this paragraph is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten.

In other sections of the article, references are lacking. There are some reliable sources cited intermittently but there are also many claims that could use the support of a reliable reference.

The girdling section seems unnecessary and out of place. Although phloem may be removed during girdling, I don’t believe this section belongs on this page. The origin section is relevant; however, it should not be a subsection under ‘Function.’ It needs to be its own small section.

The article seems unbiased and neutral. It covers the physiological aspects as well as the nutritional and cellular aspects. The information comes from several peer-reviewed articles from relevant journals in the field, as well as a Biology textbook. A variety of journals are included, making it unbiased and neutral. The article could use a few more references for better supporting evidence, but not because of any biases.

All of the links work and are appropriately placed. There doesn’t seem to be any paraphrasing or plagiarism.

Overall, the ‘Function’ section needs some editing and reorganization. Phloem loading needs to be a topic of its own with a hyperlink. There needs to be a sentence or two discussing the critical coordination between xylem and phloem. Also a few, more recent references could be added. For example, Rennie and Turgeon 2009, Turgeon 2010, Davidson et al. 2011, Fu et al. 2011. These would give the article more reliability and update some of the information.

Treegirl89 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Treegirl89

Definately, if possible.. move this to it's own article.
Mass flow hypothesis definately requires it's own article; phloem and mass flow theory aren't intrisically linked as mass flow theory covers also the majority of uptake through plants -- i'll make the new article with clear distinction of what it is as well as differences to other theories; any objections if i create Mass-flow hypothesis as a new article? J O R D A N [ talk ] 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Young $wag money was here and i think it does require its own article.

There's already an article @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_Flow_Hypothesis          --~hb2007 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Nutritional use and claims of health benefits.
This section needs to be revised or struck. My understanding is that pettu translates as bark, not flour, and the "claims" of health benefits are unsubstantiated given that it is the rye that provides the available nutrients, not the pettu, which is being added as filler. In this form is this a soluble or insoluble fibre and is it of any nutritional significance? If not, I believe this section should be removed.Biopunk (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Biopunk (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by Epipremnum aureum (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)