Talk:Plant senescence

Hi Folks,

This is socrtwo. Admittedly what I wrote about plant senescence is my opinion, and is not therefore appropriate here. Please correct or request an expert on this subject to correct the information.--socrtwo 00:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bullets to Prose

The subsections Plant Self Pruning - Theory and Hormonal Induction of Senescence - Theory are in need of changing to prose style; bullets don't really serve any purpose there that paragraphs could not serve better.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more references are needed for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.246.68 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

I offer this change to the opening paragraph to this:

Plant senescence is the physiological aging process in the plant kingdom and is part of a larger subject of plant study known as plant physiology.

My source is "Physiological Plant Ecology" 4th edition by Walter Larcher (ISBN 3-540-43516-6).

Leaf senescence and plant senescence are separate topics entirely, and should not be addressed singly in the opening paragraph. Plants age as an organism, but leaves have a single, life-limited purpose, and their senescence is neither the same as plant senescence nor chemically similar to full-organism plant senescence. FWIW. :-) The larger picture includes annuals, biennials, perennials, etc.

I would be happy to help revise this article if that is acceptable to everyone involved.

Wally (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion: Treatment of written theories

I notice that headings for various theoretical sections are clearly labeled with the word theory. The problem then arises that the following paragraphs in those sections are including charged/ambiguous words (may be, supposedly, etc.) in the theory's text along with absolute language about said theory. Additionally, all hypotheses are speculative, so stating they are speculative is, well, redundant.

"May be" (i.e., in "Annual vs. perennial benefits - theory" section) should be changed to something less ambiguous within a theoretical/hypothetical explanation...such as "It is thought" or "one explanation is" or simply cite some actual quote as it pertains to the item.

One possible solution to theories is to blockquote them, or italicize them if there are concerns about how people will read them.

Clearly, I need to review the style guides here, as that may clear up some items.

Wally (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Importance?

Despite the fascination for specialists, i think more general interest pages are deserving of the high importance template. Recommend downgrade to mid. 81.155.13.224 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"plants are obviously interested in growing"

Wow. This section on the "reasons" for plant senescence is quite anthropomorphic. "Plants are... interested in growing"? Is this "Plant Senescence" or "Plant Sentience"?

Yes but anti-anthropomorphism is a blind faith that blocks insight as well. I know science is into trying not impose man's motivation on other organisms, but not suing are own motives whatsoever as at least a testable start to understanding other organisms is also foolish. What frame of reference are we using other than our own anyway when we try to come up with scientifically testable hypotheses?--socrtwo (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Wow. This section on the "reasons" for plant senescence is quite anthropomorphic. "

Although I have never heard this mentioned, and it may not be relevant here, but I believe "anti-anthropomorphism" is not proper science either. Just because an organism is explained to have human like traits, does not mean that the explanation is non-scientific. "Anti-anthropomorphism" may have served a purpose but it has gone too far and we are missing understanding of many things simply because we are taught that a human reminding explanation is a priori false. I agree everything must be tested in the end and my statement may have gone too far. However it is not false just because it is anthropomorphic.--socrtwo (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]