User talk:Ltmansfield/sandbox

Response to evaluation

Nice evaluation. Your evaluation is on the talk page of the sandbox rather than the sandbox itself, which is why I didn't see it before. Jmmcabee (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Ideas Draft

If you are interested in glutamate signaling, you may want to check out the articles glutamic acid and glutamate receptor. Neither of these has anything about plant signaling that I saw on a very quick perusal. As for floral zones, I'm wondering if this page is so lacking because there are other terms that are more likely to be used, like hardiness zone or ecocline. And did you look at the proprioception page? Nothing about plants there, but as you suggest, maybe this information would be better on a plant physiology page. I'm surprised the plant perception page has only one plant sense on it. Jmmcabee (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Article Revision

Adding a section about the perception of gravity to the plant perception page seems like a good idea. I think you need to provide more details or cross references to terms like PIN protein and auxin signaling. I remember we read something early in the quarter about the different types of mechanoreceptors that could be involved in detecting gravity. Your second reference is the database information rather than the actual article information. Jmmcabee (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Peer Review of Second Draft

"To orient themselves correctly, plants must an adequate sense of the direction of gravity’s unidirectional pull."

- Bit of a nitpicky detail, but to explain, it is true that they use that perception to orient themselves correctly, not that they need that mechanism to orient themselves correctly (confusing cause and effect). To revise, consider wording the sentence like this: "Plants are able to preceive the direction of gravity's unidirectional pull, which allows them to orient themselves correctly."

"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."

- A lot of this could be combined/merged with information in the next paragraph, no?

"For this 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."

- Same as my first comment, consider revising to suit cause and effect. However, I will argue that this sort of concluding statement is unnecessary, as it does little more than summarizes (i.e. repeats) information.

VQuach42 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a well written, concise addition that accurately summarizes the gravitropism article. You have written in a non-biased tone that is professional and appropriate. Your citations are accurate and the links work. My main question is if this is a necessary addition to the plant physiology article. I'm guessing you will put it in the 'tropisms and nastic movements' section, which may be alright but it will look a bit out of place until a summary of each other type of tropism is added, which makes me wonder if the article is better as is, since people can click on the tropism link and get to gravitropism from there. That being said, you have done a nice job of tying several subjects together (polar auxin transport, amyoplasts, etc.) and this would be a good jumping off point for someone interested in gravitropism. In your third paragraph, I would either specify what 'this' is (second word), or include those three sentences in the second paragraph. Nice work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njstein77 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)