- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 17:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Salmon run
edit.jpg)
- ... that grizzly bears, living off salmon (pictured) during a salmon run, cycle nitrogen into the adjacent woodlands by depositing nutrient-rich urine, faeces and partially eaten carcasses there? [See the ALT1 hook]
- Reviewed: Amir Hamzah
Created/expanded by Epipelagic (talk). Self nom at 23:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I pulled this out of the prep area due to several concerns.
- First off, the hook is not entirely correct. The article states "Nitrogen cycling is facilitated by the habit of grizzlies carrying salmon carcasses into adjacent forests" and the hook echoes that. The first source cited in the article reports on bears carrying salmon carcasses into the forest, and it provides somewhat speculative discussion on the contribution to nitrogen cycling. The next sentence in the article deals with isotopic studies of fish-derived salmon in soil, and it cites two studies. The first study does report on the presence of salmon-derived nitrogen in soil near streams and it does discuss the role of bears in transporting that nitrogen, but it indicates that a study found that 96% of the salmon-derived nitrogen transported by bears is deposited in bear urine; fish carcasses seem to be a fairly minor contributor. The story of the role of bears and fish is interesting, but it's misleading to suggest that transport of fish carcasses is, by itself, a significant factor. A better article would tell about all the mechanisms by which bears transport nitrogen, and the hook also should not be limited to fish carcasses.
- I find that some of the article text is derived from the Wikipedia article Natal homing, but the edit summaries in the article history do not indicate that text came from that article. To maintain copyright integrity, when material from another Wikipedia article is used, that transfer of text is supposed to be documented. If other articles were used in similar fashion, those borrowings also should be identified by annotations in the article history. Text from other Wikipedia articles is not supposed to "count" toward a 5x expansion for DYK, but this looks like a >10x expansion, so that is unlikely to be an issue.
- The article is very difficult to read because it is hard to locate the prose in the interstices between images and photo galleries. The page would be far more effective with a few judiciously selected images. (I know which ones I would keep, but the article creator might want to take a stab at the selection process first...)
- There may be other issues similar to these -- please make sure the article is in good shape before requesting a followup review. --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well aware this was a rather hasty and uncooked offering! I'm still only half way expanding this, and uninterrupted time seems impossible at the moment. Anyway, to address your concerns in order...
- The first source [1] states on page 174: "In years of mean escapement [ie, average successful salmon runs], bears discard an average of 66 kg N yr in ort [carcasses], as compared with 0.7 kg N yr passed in urine and feces." That is, carcasses account for about 100 times more nitrogen transfer than the combined contribution of urine and feces. It is true the second source [2] says in the abstract that 96% of nitrogen in brown bears was excreted in urine, and only 3 % in feces. But further on, on page 549, it says: "Partial consumption is the rule, and many salmon carcasses are left scattered throughout the forest. The N content of the uneaten carcasses is additional to the distribution rates calculated above." This source makes it clear bears leave up to half the salmon they harvest on the forest floor, and this source says grizzly bears provide as much as 24% of the total nitrogen available to the riparian woodlands. So I don't agree with your view that the hook was misleading. Anyway, I have reworded it in a way that I hope meets residual concerns you may have. There are many other hooks that could be used.
- I did rewrite the text from natal homing. To avoid problems like this in future, I will always make a note, even when I intend to rewrite the text.
The images have been reorganized in a way I hope addresses this concern. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well aware this was a rather hasty and uncooked offering! I'm still only half way expanding this, and uninterrupted time seems impossible at the moment. Anyway, to address your concerns in order...
- The article is much improved. (Thanks for the good work!) I still think it has too many pictures (it's about the salmon run, not all aspects of the biology and life cycle of the salmon, so images of salmon eggs, parr, etc., are not germane), but the pictures no longer interfere with reading the text. The hook fact is supported. However, I think the hook would benefit from rewording, as follows:
- ALT1 ... that the salmon caught by grizzly bears (pictured) during salmon runs contribute significantly to the nitrogen cycle in adjacent woodlands where bears urinate, defecate, and drop partially eaten fish carcasses? --Orlady (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)