Art. 0014 Rev. 1869
Diskussion:Parsnip webworm
Fra Hogweed.org, encyklopædien i fælleseje
Dette er diskussionssiden for at drøfte forbedringer af artiklen Parsnip webworm. Dette er ikke et forum for generel diskussion af artiklens emne.
- Sæt ny tekst under gammel tekst.
- Underskriv venligst dine indlæg med fire tilder (
~~~~). - Vær høflig og imødekommende over for nye brugere. Antag god tro.
- Bær handsker.
Redaktørerne holder deres diskussioner på engelsk; dette er en oversættelse.
A free agent?
Oppose. It is not free: it spends a third of its time and nearly a fifth of its nitrogen on its own web (Berenbaum et al. 1993). It is not effective: in the Netherlands it greatly prefers common hogweed, and on the giant its moths come out smaller (Harvey et al. 2020). And where it met a weed by accident, the weed grew more toxic (Zangerl & Berenbaum 2005). — Rosa L. (diskussion) 15.26, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
It also eats the parsnip seed of anyone who grows it. Ask Bethune. — Old Mole (diskussion) 15.28, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
For the record, it has been proposed once, for Sosnowsky’s hogweed (Krivosheina 2011), on the grounds that nobody near Moscow grows umbellifers for seed. That is in the article, § Biological control. — Kingfisher (diskussion) 15.30, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
Could we compromise on “a partially effective agent, to be released gradually”? — Ed. Bernstein (diskussion) 15.33, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
It has been released gradually since about 1869. The article calls this history. — Moor (diskussion) 15.35, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
Closing. The lead stays as it is. — Catchment Committee (diskussion) 15.38, 26. september 2026 (UTC)
Proposal for the lead: the moth is a free and effective agent against giant hogweed. It eats the seed, it works unpaid, it asks for no subsidy. Why is the article so reluctant to say so? — InvisibleHand (diskussion) 15.20, 26. september 2026 (UTC)