User:Dawood34/sandbox

Botany:
The history section could be a bit shorter. The order of the articles can be switched. It defines a plant way too late on the page. There is no clear organization on the page. The topics are placed in random parts. Such as genetics section and plant evolution. I think both of these can be tied to the history section, and actually be a bridge to modern botany topics. The article did okay at being neutral, and more factual, however there times where it gets too "deep" or too informative for an average non scientific reader. Some links from the citations are outdated or not longer active, such as "what is plant biology" from University of Ohio source. We tend to speak on a deeper scale and more focused aspect of botany in class, where here on this article its on the surface, and more of an definition.

Plant Physiology:
This article has a much better and smooth flowing format than the previous one. Except for the fact having history last and not first. When it comes to sources, there are less external sources. They seem to be all bias towards plants and not so much neutral. External links work and are active still, unlike the previous article. Explains the chemical make up and their reactions, but does not dive much deeper into chemistry itself, or further explaining what the properties mean or why its relevant. Once again, in class we have discussed this on a more focused area, where this article seems to be on the surface in an attempt to cover the entire topic as a whole.

Week 3: Draft Ideas
Buzz pollination:

The article does a good job of explaining buzz pollination, as well as the morphology of the plant, and how the bees play a significant role when it comes to pollinated certain species. It also does a good job listing out all plants who benefit from buzz pollination. There is a type in the last sentence of the morphology section I'd edit:

"This is could be an evolutionary strategy to prevent self-fertilization, also known as selfing, by creating distance between the stigma"

The sentence :"These poricidal anthers are only able to release pollen when vibrated at a specific frequency." can be followed up be few sentences, describing the frequency as well, as the source they linked, does not do a good job explaining it.

I think the section titled "Techniques for agricultural pollination of species normally requiring buzz pollination" can be a bit distracting, as it should be offered as an external link, where it can be more informative. So I would remove this section from the buzz pollination page.

I can see the article have a sub article about "pollen production" which would take a deeper dive in the steps where the plants produce pollen.

In the very first section, I'd add the following sentence as well, which further explains the process of buzz pollination to an average reader with more details.

"This vibration shakes electrostatically charged pollen out of the anthers, and the pollen is attracted to the bumblebee’s oppositely charged body hairs. The bumblebee later grooms the pollen from its body into pollen-carrying structures on its back legs for transport to its nest."
 * Sue Rosenthal, Buzz Pollination, Bay Nature, June 11, 2008.

Week 4: First Draft
One thing I'd like to add more to this page is photos of some of the plants, maybe next to the list of where the plants are all named who depend on buzz pollination. Here is one link with few good photos.

http://www.anneleonard.com/buzz-pollination/

 Adding in the first subheading:  Due to flowers hiding away their pollen, bees which shake the flower the hardest will be favored by natural selection.

With the tubes of the flowers changing shape, it prevents the plant from loosing larger quantity of pollen. This allows the flowers to have enough pollen left for more bees, which results in higher chance of genes being passed down generations.

Economic Impacts
Thanks to today's technological advancements, scientist can now import pollinators such as bumble bees where there might be a shortage of pollinators. This was specially the case in New Zealand where the red clover plant population was restored when bumble bees were imported from Europe to help with the pollination. Maintaining red clover population in New Zealand at the time was critical to the county's crop production rate. However in North America, bee population is on the decline due to many factors, which include colony mortality, and the decline of bee keeping professionals to name a few. This has led to challenges for farmers from the east to the west coast of the United States and Canada to find alternate ways to help plants such as berries pollinate at a steady pace.

One of the most common plants that depend on buzz pollination is the greenhouse tomato (lycopersicon esculentum). Worldwide, up to 50 bumblebee colonies are used per hectare during growing season, bringing in values of approximately $13 million a year for a 40,000 hectare of greenhouses globally. Due to competition between producers and an increase in success rate of rearing, the total costs for the bumblebee colonies have diminished severely. This common practice has now lead to producers branching out and selling not only bumblebees but other insects who may have mutual relationship with plants as well. The total profit of this industry has been recorded to produce over $111 million a year, with $61 million coming in from bumblebees alone.