User:Ltmansfield/sandbox

Plant Physiology (Gravitropism)
To orient themselves correctly, plants must have an adequate sense of the direction of gravity’s unidirectional pull. The subsequent response plant movement is known as gravitropism. Typically, in the root this works as gravity is sensed and translated in the root tip, and subsequently roots grow towards gravity via elongation of the cells. In the shoot, similar effects are happening, but gravity is perceived and then growth occurs in the opposite direction, as the above ground part of the plant experiences negative gravitropism.

At the root tip, there are amyloplasts containing starch granules that fall in the direction of gravity. This weight activates secondary receptors, which signal to the plant the direction of gravitational pull. After this occurs, auxin is redistributed through polar auxin transport and differential growth towards gravity begins. In the shoots, auxin redistribution occurs in a way to produce differential growth away from gravity.

For perception to happen, the plant must sense, perceive and translate the direction of gravity. Without gravity, proper orientation will not occur and the plant will not effectively grow. The root will not be able to uptake nutrients or water, and the shoot will not grow towards the sky to maximize photosynthesis.

First Draft
I noticed that light was the only perception on the page. I think that it makes more sense for me to write a section on the perception of gravity, as I don't see how the two are that much different. Also, digging for articles about proprioception was a slug as the science doesn't quite seem to be there yet.

Perceiving Gravity
"In order to grow correctly, plants must sense the direction of gravity to orient themselves correctly, this is known as gravitropism. The mechanism of perceiving gravity is in the PIN protein positioning and subsequent auxin movement creating growth via auxin transport. Typically in the root, this works as gravity is sensed and translated in the root tip, and then roots grow towards gravity via the area of elongation . In the shoot, similar effects are happening, but gravity is perceived and growth occurs in the opposite way, as the above ground part of the plant experiences negative gravitropism. "

Plant perception (physiology)
I am super interested in proprioception and would love to include some ideas on the plant physiology page. There is nothing there so far, so it is only up from here. I think that it will add to the depth of the article, and will certainly help get its point across better, as it is rather lacking. “Plant proprioception has many clues, specifically mechanical ones, such as turgor pressure and tensile stress.”

Floral zone
There is not really much here, only a few sentences. I’m not sure if there is enough to discuss with this topic though, although it is fairly interesting.

“These sections can be divided by ‘plant hardiness’ and are divided into 13 zones, with multiple subdivisions”

Plant physiology (Glutamate)
I have not been able to dig anything up and would be starting from scratch, but this information is so interesting! I think it is something that I can dig my teeth into, and is still accessible enough to write about.

"Plants too have transmitters, in roots glutamate is one of them. This is similar to in mammals, as glutamate is one of the primary excitatory neurotransmitters."

Specifics
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? - In plant physiology the “aims” section reads like a high school five paragraph essay. This was somewhat distracting.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? - There are parts in Plant Physiology that could use citing, specifically in the food research section. Although true, it reads like an opinion. I was also surprised by the lack of total number of references at the bottom.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? - I think all are neutral and unbiased. I didn’t see any bias noted though.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? - Plant physiology can use quite a bit of work, the information looks outdated and the language is rather scientific.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - Botany is part of 4 different projects, but they seem to be out of date since the last edit was over a year ago.

Overall
Botany – plant ecology is quite a short section comparatively, as is evolution, all links clicked on as citations worked, overall looks like a well-rounded article. It is part of 4 wikiprojects currently and is of top importance, interesting that it hasn’t been edited in over a year. Plant Physiology – Definitely a lot less well rounded, the current research section is small, I feel like we know a lot more than what is described here, language is a lot higher – feels aimed more towards scientists, the “aims” section is quite messy. (Ltmansfield (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC))