Talk:Plant nutrition/Archive 1

Added stuff
Added stuff because there was just a ton of stuff on the rest of wikipedia that needed to be linked to. Perhaps this needs a more complex description of the symptoms of each, but if they need it, they'll get it eventually. 128.101.70.246 16:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of essential plant nutrients, is it 16?
I want to know the number of essential plant nutrient with the year of discovery and scientest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.104.198 (talk) 11:27, May 28, 2007 (UTC)

Nickel
My biology textbook says Nickel is also an essential micronutrient. If anyone knows more about this maybe it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.132 (talk) 00:37, December 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'll put something on about nickel. It's involved in nitrogen metabolism according to my biology textbook (by Kent). Feel free to delete or challenge! Ahezhara 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

look
this is a great page, lots of good information although its not all consistent...

e.g. the minor nutrients list has chlorine although the 'plant uses for essential nutrients' does not describe why it is necessary. also, the latter list decribes why nickel is essential but nickel is not presently listed under the minor nutrients category.

so, yeah. im not going to change anything because i wouldn't have a clue, just thought i should put this all out there...

someone vandalized sulfur and calcium!!!!

a biology student :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.205.77 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Mnemonic... things
Why are there two mnemonic things on this same page? It seems to me that only one would be necessary.206.74.172.254 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How strange. Which one do we want to keep? They're both slightly different Ahezhara 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This really should be merged with the "micronutrients" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.154.100 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page has been vandalised, so can someone please revert it back to the unvandalised version?Don Black 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Macronutrients
I think alternative names for nutrients should be given major nutrients = macronutrients, further divided into primary (NPK) and secondary macronutrients. minor nutrients = micronutrients

also more information about mechanisms of nutrient uptake...cation exchange is mentioned, but doesn't anion exchange take place too? also passive uptake of nutrients through transpiration of water? Tugela tony 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Very valid point. Someone correct it 59.183.143.98 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like having this topic on a separate page. It would be good to note somewhere, for those of us less science-oriented, that several supplements have boron (types) in them and whether too much can be taken in a day's time. thanks for all you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.134.76 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Concentrations
The ppm concentrations for the nutrients appear to be average concentrations in plants, but are not explained. Nor is a reference given. Drbillellis (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables to be incorporated
There are two nice tables at Plant physiology that should probably be incorporated into this article. -- Hi  Ev  18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

answer
Question:What does major mineral required by plants include?

Answer:nitrogen,potassium,phosphorus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.240.74 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen gas is not produced by respiration!
The last sentence in this paragraph describing the plant taking in oxygen says that oxygen gas is produced as a by product from respiration. That is not correct. Carbon dioxide is produced from respiration. Oxygen is produced in the reverse reaction - photosynthesis.

'' Cellular respiration is the process of generating energy-rich adenosine triphosphate (ATP) via the consumption of sugars made in photosynthesis. Oxygen gas is produced as a by-product from this reaction.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrac2 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you can even check the wikipedia page about cellular respiration. CO2 is produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.148.216 (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of microorganisms?
Why is there no mention of the role of microorganisms in plant nutrition?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.109.190.88 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I added links from phosphorus and nitrogen to microbial inoculants and fixation. Sidelight12 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutrogenic And Hygenic Organic
Modul Tap to Under Organic centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.26.237 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil#Nutrients
The information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil#Nutrients is about plant nutrition Sidelight12 (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition but need to read it in more depth. The address of nutrients in the "Soil" article is written from the perspective of agriculture as is much of the article as that was the historical motivation for the study of soil. The article "Soil" is approaching completeness but is growing long. Perhaps the length of the nutrients section can be trimmed down, but a simple redirect to "Plant nutrition" won't suffice unless that article is rewritten to include some of the material in the "Soil" article. If a decision is to be made concerning merging, it should include many more people not just a couple of us. The same suggestion to merge might be made about many of the sections in "Soil". Take for instance the section on "Soil pH" where I wrote a brief explanation of pH that differs from that in the article on "pH" as I felt that article was pedantic and turgid and I did not want to step on toes by rewriting it in a simpler and clearer manner. There is more work to be done on the "Soil" article and I hope to see it made a "good article" some day. Share and Enjoy. Zedshort (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not gone into detail in both the articles, but I reckon that though a bit of trimming and cross-linking might be in order in places, we should not get too excited about a bit of overlap, especially if it happens in appropriate context. If eg we mention the plant nutrient elements in discussing soil, it does not mean that we must not mention them in discussing plant nutrition; the two are different subjects in different contexts, with different emphases. But suppose we were to mention in discussing soil, that a high kaolin content might make soil trace nutrient elements such as iron unavailable to plants without suitable mycorrhizae, it does not follow that we must not mention the fact in discussing nutrition, or indeed, mycorrhizae. Duplicating large blocks of text certainly would be inappropriate as a rule, but reasonable summary paragraphs with cross-references to main articles are inoffensive, helpful, and a lot better than demanding that the reader link across to a major article for far more material than he might have wanted. Subject to further comment IMO: Small earthquake, no one hurt... JonRichfield (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) and I believe the box can be removed.Alandmanson (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let me ask you, what if we merge this section into the article? The Snowager -is awake  02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been through both Soil#Nutrients and this article - the former deals largely with soil processes of different nutrients and this article deals with functions and processes in the plant. There is now very little overlap

Critiques and the trouble with Boron
This article has a lot of information, which should be considered appropriate for a topic as large as this. I do think, however, that there are significant gaps in certain areas that could be expanded on. The structure of the different sections, broken down by nutrient, could be organized better. There is little consistency between the individual elements, which makes reading for purposes of comparison very difficult.

Additionally, there are many areas where there are no citations at all, and some where the citations are presented in a more “traditional” format (author name, year) and not given a reference at the bottom of the page or a link to any reference, unlike the superscript citations usually used in Wikipedia. Some of the subsections provide links to other articles about that elements role in biological processes, but not all of them do. This may simply be due to the fact that there is no article detailing this, but it could at least link to the relevant section of the elements Wikipedia page. The boron section is particularly lacking in citations, and is very long compared with its fellow micronutrients. Many of the other micronutrients detailed also lack citations (chlorine, zinc, sodium), and would benefit from some restructuring so that they can be more uniform.

Also, the inclusion of vanadium and selenium in the micronutrients section seems questionable, and could probably be placed as an “others” section to make it less confusing, especially since the text for selenium outright says that it is really just a “beneficial” nutrient to some plants.- Kuhcee (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeat
There has a repeat of nitrogen deficiency on both the ' processes ' and functions of nutritions '.Yanlin Wang (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Yanlin Wang (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

summary of each element
If we can give each element a summary, it will be much better and clearer. Because some of the elements may have the same influence and some may have just a little differences. ––YURU CHANG (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

PH
PH is included in the "Se also" section but I think that it should be in the article because PH is important for plant nutrition. This article includes many of the macro and micro nutrients, but PH is necessary for this article because of how PH can affect the availability of the mentioned nutrients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzcontrolsteph (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plant nutrition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/fpnb16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219114737/http://aesl.ces.uga.edu/publications/plant/Nutrient.htm to http://aesl.ces.uga.edu/publications/plant/Nutrient.htm
 * Added tag to http://excellerator.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/phc_silicon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Have No Idea What This Is


what is this picture of? it doesn't even have a caption... 173.79.68.101 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC) an IP you shouldn't care about :D
 * Looks like an apparatus to introduce trace elements (seaweed emulsion?) into a dripline ... and yes here is the same picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertigation --Salbayeng (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)