Talk:Phytophthora ramorum

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move. Redirects will be created for convenience. Duja► 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

This request was put onto WP:RM on 9 February 2007 but the discussion page was Talk:Sudden Oak Death (note upper case) which did not exist. Further it was placed there without a move template on this page. So this conversation was hard to find. For this reason I am reformating the request and resubmitting it. I have made a good faith attempt to include the opinions expressed in the Discussion section in the Survey. If I have made a mistake please adjust your entry ASAP. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I think it might be best, since P. ramorum infects many more species than just oak, that this article has it's title changed to Phytophora ramorum. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Survey

Please add Support of Oppose below

• Support, a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd be inclined to keep the name "sudden oak death" regardless of host. Kingdon 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say that Ramorum dieback would deserve a separate article. Somanypeople 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Additional comments

I think it might be best, since P. ramorum infects many more species than just oak, that this article has it's title changed to Phytophora ramorum. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

I partially agree. I think that it should be broken into two separtate articles, one on sudden oak death and the other on Phytophora ramorum. The information that is specific to the disease be included with the disease article and the taxon, fungal identification info be included in the Phytophora ramorum article.Somanypeople 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep the name "sudden oak death" regardless of host. In communication with the general public (signs at trailheads and such, I don't remember ever seeing any name other than "sudden oak death"). Even scientists sometimes call it sudden oak death when applied to non-oak hosts (for example "Non-oak native plants are the main hosts for sudden oak death" from the references). As for splitting into pages for the disease versus the organism, there's some logic to that. If you look at Salmonella typhi versus Typhoid fever, for example, there's some duplication between the two, but on the whole it seems to work OK. The two issues (whether to have a disease page and whether the term "sudden oak death" can apply to a disease of non-oaks) are largely separate, though. Kingdon 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if we take examples of other plant pathogen articals, many are called by the species name and not the diesease name. For instance rice blast was renamed M. grisea despite the fact it barely causes any note-worthy diseases on other species. P. ramorum has a very large species range. If we broke into two articles, would we then need a third for Ramorum dieback as it couldn't really go here (doesn't affect oaks!) and wouldn't fit in with P. ramorum if that was just taxonomy.(a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I would say that Ramorum dieback would deserve a separate article. My feeling is that any disease (pathogen/plant species combination) that is of significant importance should have it's own article.Somanypeople 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can just have one article with a redirect from the other name. It really does not matter which. If the article gets really long, then split it into an article for the disease symptomology and a separate article for the pathogen. -Arch dude 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on "fungus." The organism is not a fungus. It's a fungoid protist. which measn that it is not even in the same kingdom as the fungi.Apparently, this distinction is somewhat recent, Do we need to do anything about this? -Arch dude 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say in the article it's a fungus does it? I labbeled it as an oomycete. Plant pathologists do called Oomycetes diseases fungal diseases, because via convergent evolution both kingdoms use exactly the same mechanism of biotrophic pathogenesis. So we also still say fungicide, even when we are using them to kill oomycetes. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need maps

the article urgently need a map of the affected areas in California. A map of the European areas may also be useful.A third map of the orgin area in Asia would be useful, but is probably WP:OR -Arch dude 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The only maps I have come out of journal articals, so they'd be copyrighted, right?...I'll check PLoS biology actually, that might have something. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Bay laurel

The reference to "bay laurel" as a major source of innoculum in forests is probably mistaken. I suspect the plant meant is Umbellularia californica, common name "California bay". "Bay laurel" is normally understood as referring to the old-world species Laurus nobilis; indeed, that is what the Wikipedia itself does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.175.33 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) "Bay laurel" and "bay" are the common names in the U.S. west coast vernacular referring to U. californica.Yankeepapa13 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo of hillside in Big Sur

Looks like mostly dead and living pines, not oaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLuber1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo is too low quality to be absolutely sure, but as for living trees, those are largely redwoods, not pines. The appearance of the dead trees is not inconsistent with dead tan oaks. I live on property hard hit by sudden oak death. I would assume the person who took the photo correctly identified the trees. Eperotao (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for P. ramorum

There is no question that "Sudden Oak Death" deserves its own article, but because of the length of this article and the fact that it gives short shrift to the non-oak victims, it seems appropriate to divide the two articles. The P. ramorum article could include both taxonomy and diseases like Ramorum dieback. It could have a synoptic paragraph about "sudden oak disease" with a Template:Main to this article. That way this article could focus on Sudden Oak Death (IAW the title), and those seeking information about P. ramorum could find it without distraction. It would mean shortening this article, a bit, as the general material may not need repeating in as much detail here. Does a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation object to having a general P. ramorum article? --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jargon

Parts of this article, such as the section on ecological impacts, are inaccessible for a general reader. I have an excellent background in biology and ecology and even in basic forestry. E.g., I audited a university course in forest ecology in the 1970s. But the ecology section is too dense and riddled with jargon for me to understand even half of it and the rest is very uneven. I hope someone can translate into standard English throughout. Eperotao (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Sudden oak death → Phytophthora ramorum – This has been requested before in 2007. Back then this pathogen was mainly known as a North American disease, where it is notable as a fatal disease of Oak trees. Since then the pathogen has been killing trees (mainly Japanese Larch) in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but it has not harmed the native oak species in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. So from a purely European perspective "Sudden oak death" is a really poor name for the disease and government websites (eg. [1]) and news organisations (eg. [2]) don't call it that. It has previously been suggested that there could be two separate articles, one on Sudden oak death and the other on Phytophora ramorum, but I really can't see how one can sensibly divide the article up (and there's nothing wrong with having a long article anyway). I think it would make most sense to move this page to Phytophthora ramorum, and prominently declare in the lead that it causes the disease known in North America as Sudden oak death; anyone searching for that phrase will still find what they're looking for. Pasicles (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support It makes sense to have the more general title of the species name rather than of one disease that it causes. We'd be following the convention used for redirecting late blight to Phytophthora infestans. SmartSE (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Plant pathogens can have multiple common names as diseases of different plants. Move to the scientific name of the pathogen, and create redirects for any common names of diseases caused by the pathogen. Plantdrew (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It is a more precise name. We should redirect from the current name. ''Sitta kah'' (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

exotic pathogen?!

I noticed this from the intro: "the origins of the pathogen are still unclear but most evidence suggests it was repeatedly introduced as an exotic species.[1]" I can't believe you actually meant to say that, but if you did the abstract of the ref doesn't support you.

Perhaps what was meant was something like "the repeated introduction of exotic species spread the pathogen". Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While the abstract only hints at this, the actual content of the reference provides strong evidence citing a multitude of recent studies indicating that P. ramorum is introduced into Europe and North America and exotic, while the origin of these populations remains to be found.NatCO (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I keep wondering whether it's spread is related to foliar spraying of plants with compost tea. Compost and compost tea sounds like an ideal place for this organism. 2601:243:1203:4FF3:712E:B745:783B:96CE (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)2601:243:1203:4FF3:712E:B745:783B:96CE (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)