Talk:Ecophysiology

Article creation and general topics

I was surprised that this page did not exist before. I think it should be greatly expanded, espcecially because the importance of ecophysiology as a field of study is increasing due to climate change and other environmental changes caused by human activity. Please help me in adding material. --Chino 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know litle of this specific discipline, but there seems to me much potential overlap in methodology, areas of research, history, journals, specific research, groups and specific researchers with the disciplines of evolutionary and comparative physiology, not to mention evolutionary biology and classical physiology. This page would do well to (continue to) focus on what is unique to ecophysiology and reference these other pages where possible. Jethero^Talk 09:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. I intend to expand substantially the plant ecophysiology sections in the coming months.Bakanae (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

possible sections for consideration

• Biochemical basis of adaptation (isn't this more central to evolutionary physiology)
• Climate change (perhaps 'Physiology and Climate change'?)

I removed these for now, since they are empty Jethero^Talk 09:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More topics to create under plants:

• Nutrients
• Wind
• Water
• Salt
• CO2 Smartse (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

gene count comparison between animals and plants

The genome of black cottonwood is predicted to contain more than 40,000 genes in approximately 480 million nucleotides, while some species are considerably larger. In comparison, the human genome is predicted to contain 38,631 genes and roughly 3 billion nucelotides .

While I agree that there is probably good evidence out there that makes the point that some plants have considerably more DNA, copy number and gene count, this paragraph is a bit of a mess now that I've added in the most recent human gene counts from NCBI, so I've moved it here until we can get better sources. Further, black cottonwood may no longer be the best example, if its gene count here is accurate, because it's really about the same size as the human gene count, and according to NCBI, there have only been 146 genes submitted to date. Unfortunately, for the confirmed genes from the sequenced plant species, the highest is Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) with 31392 genes as of Feb 21, 2007. Jethero^Talk 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Physiological Ecology is not Ecophysiology

Shouldn't the title of this page be changed to Physiological Ecology? Ecological physiology and physiological ecology are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.96.62.2 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Environmental effects on physiology

These two articles deal with the same concept. As such, Environmental effects on physiology should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the merge was done.--Auró (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change title to Physiological ecology

I propose to change the title of this article to Physiological ecology. The reason is to keep coherence with the naming system used for other fields of ecology in Wikipedia: for instance there is an article named Population ecology and another one Community ecology. This would also be in line with the title of F. A. Bazzaz book Plants in Changing Environments. Linking physiological, population, and community ecology. --Auró (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• The name is more concise like this and it doesn't alter the meaning. The synonym "Physiological ecology" is cleared up in the first sentence, so it doesn't go against what those sources say. Unless there is a meaning difference in any form, it'd be better like it is. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 12:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be that the two terms are not equivalent. "Ecophysiology" pertains to physiology science, and "physiological ecology" to ecology. Now the question is, are both sciences just two ways of looking at the same think, or have they different methods and objectives? I will try to clarify it, and would appreciate contributions.--Auró (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline to guide us. Books such as this and this demonstrate that scientists use the terms synonomously. Looking at the number of publications listed in google scholar that mention either in the last 4 years, there are slightly more uses of ecophysiology than physiological ecology. This publication from 30 years ago titled "What Is Physiological Ecology?" mentions that there is/was a debate about whether there is a difference but I can't find anything since which would help us. Considering all of this, I think it is best just to stick with ecophysiology for now. SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found also further evidence that the two names designate practically the same thing. I will expand the article lead accordingly.--Auró (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecophysiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707042447/http://bartgen.bio.uci.edu/tree/ to http://bartgen.bio.uci.edu/tree

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)