Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Aeroplankton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ballooning spiders

[edit]

hello i would like to say that balooning spiders are NOT carried by currents of air, but by ELECTRICITY 70.82.105.176 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)anonymous 70.82.105.176 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aeroplankton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
– changed
– gone
– I was thinking of things like dandilion seeds and ballooning spiders
– changed
hit ctrl+F and type in " and " with the spaces to find all the places you may have missed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– changed
– the word has gone
– changed to "temporary or intermittant water"
– changed to: "to several hundred meters, and up to several thousand meters"
why not "hundreds of thousands of meters"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– done
  • " Freshwater organisms that must 'cross the dry ocean' to enter new aquatic island systems will be passively dispersed more successfully than terrestrial taxa.[6] However, numerous taxa from both soil and freshwater systems have been captured from the air" I don't get how these 2 statements contradict each other Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– the unnecessary "however" has disappeared
– gone
– it's talking about how old fossilised pollen can be. Still, I removed the comment.
– reworded the sentence
– the source given is a review which discusses three further sources for thunderstorm asthma, refs 72–74
– working on adding a section to address this
it'd be better if it was discussed where relevant, like the ecological benefits of fungus dispersal in the Fungal spores section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– The Microbiome section deals briefly with the ecology of aeroplankton. I can't find anything particularly significant in aeroplankton research which uses a tradition approach to ecology. Rather environmental airplankton samples are rapidly analyzed by high-throughput sequencing, an approach which sits well with the microbiome framework.
– gone
– but don't ferns produce spores rather than pollen? [1][2]
– reworded

@Dunkleosteus77: Thank you! I'm now starting to work through the issues. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to pick up tomorrow or day after Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: are there any further issues to address? - — Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– trimmed

Original research tag

[edit]

Someone removed my original research tag and asked me to justify it. I put it there because there was a statement on what recent research tends to focus on that was justified (instead of by a secondary source) by a list of various studies that focused on that, which is original research by the policy (i.e. original synthesis). I’m going to re-add the tag now that I’ve explained it, because I think it’s justified. It also helps warn people reading that something is dubious. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not "original research", nor is it "original synthesis", because it is sourced to this paper, as cited at the end of the enclosing paragraph for the entry. Consequently, the tag is inappropriate. However, I accept the statement is a synthesis based on a primary source, rather than a more appropriate secondary source, so I removed it. Regards – Epipelagic (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]