Art. 0001 Rev. 1917 Semi-protected Hazard: phototoxic
Talk:Giant hogweed
From Hogweed.org, the encyclopedia held in common
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Giant hogweed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article’s subject.
- Put new text under old text.
- Please sign your posts with four tildes (
~~~~). - Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith.
- Wear gloves.
Mowing or root cutting?
Oppose. Mowing does not exhaust the plant. A flowering plant that is cut regrows, and nearly half flower again the same summer (Pyšek et al. 2007); rosettes that keep losing their leaves put off flowering for years and live longer (Pergl et al. 2006). A programme of mowing is a programme for the permanent management of hogweed, not for its removal. The question is not whether one prefers mowing or root cutting, but whether one wants the hogweed to remain. — Rosa L. (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Root cutting is labour-intensive and, frankly, radical. You will frighten people off. — Ed. Bernstein (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality: where is the Benefits section?
This article is relentlessly negative. Hogweed provides nectar for bees, was once a high-yield fodder crop, and today supports a whole sector of contractors, herbicide suppliers and consultants. None of this is mentioned. Please add a Benefits section for balance. — InvisibleHand (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It is common sense. The market has spoken: the plant is everywhere. — InvisibleHand (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As a beekeeper I can confirm that the nectar is excellent. Private nuisances, public benefits: the plant may burn the odd child, but the hive as a whole prospers. — B. Mandeville (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
@B. Mandeville: please read the guideline on conflicts of interest before editing articles about your own hives. — Old Mole (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the article {{POV}} until the dispute is resolved. Please do not remove the tag. — Catchment Committee
(talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Too big to remove?
Some of the stands along the river are enormous — hundreds of plants, all flowering at once. Is it realistic to remove them at all? Wouldn’t it be wiser to contain them and concentrate on the small ones? — Kingfisher (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The largest stands have the largest seed banks and supply the seed for all the others. Containing them means mowing them every year, for ever. They are not too big to remove; they are too big to leave. — Rosa L. (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
A stand of that size is a local institution. Removing it overnight would be destabilising for the riverbank. — InvisibleHand (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The riverbank is bare every winter precisely because of the stand. See Ecological impact. — Old Mole (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposed deletion: the red link “Alternatives”
The See also section links to Alternatives, which does not exist and, after all these years, evidently never will. Red links should be removed. Propose deletion: there is no alternative. — EndOfHistory (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Should the article mention the 1990s?
Is the paragraph on the dissolution of the collective farms really necessary? It feels political. — Ed. Bernstein (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The Control section is unfairly dismissive of mowing. Regular mowing, patiently kept up over many seasons, does exhaust the root in the end — Caffrey (1999) says as much. Most landowners will accept mowing; very few will dig. For them the mowing is everything, and eradication, as a final goal, is nothing. I propose rewording the section to present mowing as a viable long-term strategy. — Ed. Bernstein (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)