User talk:Cat&Donkey/Perennial grain

Hi Emelyn, This is great, in my opinion it is pretty much ready to upload to the article. I think you've done a great job explaining the content and terminology in a digestible way. The organization makes a lot of sense, and the article rounds out in a way that makes me want to learn more without feeling like its missing any major ideas. It might be good to reduce some of the text in the first three paragraphs if possible without removing any of the ideas. There are also some places throughout that I think could still use a reference, like the last two sentences of the first paragraph. For minor stuff, I think you could add one more sentence after you mention the Land Institute that talks about who is working on this stuff now, since right now it reads like everything we know now we learned about in the 80s. I don't think you need the year in the citations at the end of the De Novo Domestication section. So it would just be Cox et al.[9]. Overall great job! noah Elioeilish (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought the introduction/background section did a great job giving some historical context to the topic while also setting up the general structure used in the following sections. This structure for the three approaches is effective, with a short explanation of the approach, then the advantages and drawbacks of each. Overall, the article could be strengthened by making more explicit links between ideas and their associated references. There are some paragraphs that don't contain any references until the very last sentence, and I think it's just because all of the information in those paragraphs are associated with the one reference. I think it's okay to just cite the same reference for each sentence, but if that feels weird you could just mention in the beginning of the paragraph that all of the following info comes from one source. Somewhat relatedly, the tone of the first paragraph comes off a bit persuasive. This might just be the stance taken by the authors of the first reference, and if so I would just explicitly say, "Wagner et al. [1] argue that if the theoretical benefits of perennial agriculture...". The topic sentence for the very first paragraph could be reworked to be more like the other two paragraphs in the intro section, which I think were structured really well. Also, there were some technical terms throughout that could be explained and/or linked to another page, like seed shattering, free-threshing seeds, polygenetic, and orthologues. Overall, though, this is a thorough article that is really well written and organized. I'm personally curious if there have been programs or at least proposals for federal or state subsidies that incentivize establishing perennial grains despite low initial yield, and what proponents & critics had to say about them. I don't think the third paragraph necessarily needs more detail though, it's great the way it is. noah Elioeilish (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Evelyn, I think you did a fantastic job in the organization and flow of your sections. Beginning with the first section you do well in leading off with more general information and progressing towards the specifics, and the immense amount of background on perennial crop domestication gives justification for the significance of further research in a modern day context. I also really liked how you set up your first few introductory paragraphs in a way that follows the overall outline of the topics you cover. This gives readers sufficient knowledge and makes it easier to understand the more complex ideas within each topic as they advance in your article. I really like this article! The first big picture suggestion I have is in regard to the overall tone in your paragraphs. Though it is not as prevalent in the body given that information is more definitive, some of the topic sentences and more conceptual claims read as though they are somewhat opinionated. This is likely due to the sentences with the word "argue" or "controversy" suggesting contrasting opinions in the field but lacking citations that would suggest it is not your own constructed opinion. Including more citations or stating that claims are of the authors could diminish this confusion. The only other global revision I would suggest is maybe considering adding a bit more evidence from the studies themselves on top of the overall conclusion of the findings. Though this is really fastidious, the inclusion of a description of results in a study might make the claims more valid and assist in further "arguing" for claims of said sources. Firstly on a smaller scale, I think your final paragraph could use some minor edits. I am assuming you intended to write "have not been sequenced", and "there have been rapid gains in the development". Other than that I think this works as a good conclusion to the section. Secondly I think the article would read a little better (especially to someone like me who knows relatively little about plants) by including more formal definitions of terms you mention such as seed shattering and orthologs. EasyBlakeOven (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Emelyn – overall, really nice first draft. I thought the material was generally well-structured to flow from one idea to the next. The level of detail was generally appropriate, though I pointed out some sections that could use a bit more simplification. Looking forward to seeing the next draft! More detailed comments below.

Try to avoid demonstratives in your writing. For example, in the second sentence where you say “this system” consider saying ‘monoculture systems’ to avoid confusion by readers.

The first part of the second paragraph in the first section could be reduced some. Also, consider rewording the part about shorter generation time and artificial selection to explain why this is the case. The last two sentences of this paragraph seem a bit out of place. I understand they are part of a list of reasons why annuals but not perrenials have been domesticated, but I think the multiple sentences to explain some of the others makes it so this is not obvious. Thus, consider adding a “other reasons for the lack of domestication….” before the last couple.

You may want to avoid pitting folks against each other in terms of the reasons for perennial domestication. For example, I would consider just saying (for the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph) that there are many potential reasons contributing to the lack of domestication of perennials, which would reduce the controversial part of it. Another example might be that you can reword the third paragraph to be a little less like one side arguing something. Perhaps something along the lines of “Proponents of perennial agriculture see many reasons why it could be successful, despite the lack of progress in the field…” Hopefully this makes sense!

In the crop development methods, the introductory sentences set up the rest of the section nicely! You might want to explain what “new domestication” means – I have a sense for it having interacted with folks in the Miller lab, but I think the general populace might need a little help to understand it means starting from scratch. I wonder, given that, whether it might be a better strategy to list it later, after you have described perennialization, so that you can contrast it. The second paragraph of the de novo section is a bit hard to follow towards the end. Suggest reordering those ideas or explaining in a different way.

Really nice intro sentence to the perennialization section! Might need to explain F1 or use a different term. Some of this section is a bit technical, so suggest you simplify.

Noah and Blake both had some great feedback that seems to mirror my own, so that will be helpful in rewriting for your next draft! Evol&#38;Glass (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Emelyn, I really liked how you discussed the history and current status of agriculture in your introduction and how you provided both advantages and disadvantages for each method, as well as keeping the language in the article rather straightforward and understandable for those with less of a background in plants and agriculture. In your introductory paragraph for crop development methods, I would suggest adding a little more information about the Land Institutes. It seemed a little out of the blue to mention individuals while the rest of the article is much more generalized, so it might help to elaborate on why they’re so important to development. I would also suggest adding an explanation in the first perennialization paragraph: while it’s perfectly easy to read, I don’t understand exactly how hybridizing annual and perennial crops would accomplish making the annual plants perennial. I noticed that in the article some paragraphs are indented while others are not. It’s nothing major, but something that should be noted when adding it to the rest of the article page. Another minor edit is the variation in citations within parentheses in the last sentence of the first paragraph of de novo domestication.KestrelFlight (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to update the "methods for developing perennial grains" section of this article to further discuss how the domestication process of perennial grains. I would like to use the following citations to help flesh out this section.

Scopus EXPORT DATE:11 Feb 2021

DeHaan, L., Larson, S., López-Marqués, R.L., Wenkel, S., Gao, C., Palmgren, M. Roadmap for Accelerated Domestication of an Emerging Perennial Grain Crop (2020) 25 (6), pp. 525-537. Cited 5 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85080999719&doi=10.1016%2fj.tplants.2020.02.004&partnerID=40&md5=2e68672e0b2fa1a34f3bc54b58b0ebe6

DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.02.004

Crain, J., Bajgain, P., Anderson, J., Zhang, X., DeHaan, L., Poland, J. Enhancing Crop Domestication Through Genomic Selection, a Case Study of Intermediate Wheatgrass (2020) 11, art. no. 319,. Cited 3 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85083103100&doi=10.3389%2ffpls.2020.00319&partnerID=40&md5=b54120a97aceaa43cafa99b717242e03

DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00319

Schlautman, B., Barriball, S., Ciotir, C., Herron, S., Miller, A.J. Perennial grain legume domestication Phase I: Criteria for candidate species selection (2018) 10 (3), art. no. 730,. Cited 10 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85043228513&doi=10.3390%2fsu10030730&partnerID=40&md5=ad562561cb9e0a9d42ca58379bc15823

DOI: 10.3390/su10030730

Cattani, D.J., Asselin, S.R. Has selection for grain yield altered intermediate wheatgrass? (2018) 10 (3), art. no. 688,. Cited 7 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85042772280&doi=10.3390%2fsu10030688&partnerID=40&md5=28f46891935a86493d7af6d95f20ccff

DOI: 10.3390/su10030688

'''Kantarski, T., DeHaan, L., Poland, J., Borevitz, J. Toward the rapid domestication of perennial grains: Developing genetic and genomic resources for intermediate wheatgrass (2016) pp. 227-242. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85051158983&partnerID=40&md5=6d9392c82b37f56d806140be06ed9f5e ''' NOT AVAILIBLE FROM SLU^

Smaje, C. The Strong Perennial Vision: A Critical Review (2015) 39 (5), pp. 471-499. Cited 18 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84926194027&doi=10.1080%2f21683565.2015.1007200&partnerID=40&md5=52007687deeb76c501b25ad30d9a9995

DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1007200

Dehaan, L.R., Van Tassel, D.L. Useful insights from evolutionary biology for developing perennial grain crops (2014) 101 (10), pp. 1801-1819. Cited 27 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84907971079&doi=10.3732%2fajb.1400084&partnerID=40&md5=846bb4b217342681767fc131c69b0c60

DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1400084

Van Tassel, D.L., Dehaan, L.R., Cox, T.S. Missing domesticated plant forms: Can artificial selection fill the gap? (2010) 3 (5-6), pp. 434-452. Cited 45 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-77957338902&doi=10.1111%2fj.1752-4571.2010.00132.x&partnerID=40&md5=6b9ecdebdb9782a7f5fea327b2f5ee8f

DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00132.x

Cox, T.S., Glover, J.D., Van Tassel, D.L., Cox, C.M., DeHaan, L.R. Prospects for developing perennial grain crops (2006) 56 (8), pp. 649-659. Cited 167 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33746913873&doi=10.1641%2f0006-3568%282006%2956%5b649%3aPFDPGC%5d2.0.CO%3b2&partnerID=40&md5=98b03c488d435f641fc41d8b90c33632

DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[649:PFDPGC]2.0.CO;2

DeHaan, L.R., Van Tassel, D.L., Cox, T.S. Perennial grain crops: A synthesis of ecology and plant breeding (2005) 20 (1), pp. 5-14. Cited 96 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-18944381284&doi=10.1079%2fRAF200496&partnerID=40&md5=b5e5724062062eb065335ba9427afbde

DOI: 10.1079/RAF200496

Cox, T.S., Bender, M., Picone, C., Van Tassel, D.L., Holland, J.B., Brummer, E.C., Zoeller, B.E., Paterson, A.H., Jackson, W. Breeding perennial grain crops (2002) 21 (2), pp. 59-91. Cited 119 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0036216289&doi=10.1080%2f0735-260291044188&partnerID=40&md5=087da46177b53c9a8f7408bfc5fccaf9

DOI: 10.1080/0735-260291044188

Wagoner, P. Perennial Grain Development: Past Efforts and Potential for the Future (1990) 9 (5), pp. 381-408. Cited 58 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0000344922&doi=10.1080%2f07352689009382298&partnerID=40&md5=05eebd2b16b4c9a9212d4e71ea1c5a0f

DOI: 10.1080/07352689009382298