Talk:Tree/Archive 1

Grammar

"a practice is known" --> "a practice known". From a few words before "dendrochronology".71.7.166.165 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help to determine what species of Maple is this?

The image is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maple#Anyone_know_what_specie_is_this.3F

I didn't even know that Maples could grow in Brazil, but maybe it depends on the Maple's specie. So, can someone guess? --201.53.61.233 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• In brazil snows every year, even if just a few days. That in the southern mountains, since southern brazil is Brazil's coldest region. The city in which there is that Maple, is located in Rio Grande do Sul, at 800m (2624 ft) above sea level. (Gramado) --SangeYasha (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tree facts

Some conservation and non-profit organizations focus on the planting of trees as the best solution to combat ecological degradation. Initiatives include the efforts of Dr. Wangari Maathai in Kenya through the UNEP Billion Tree Campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaratrouts (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bamboo

Should we put bamboo here? It is a kind of grass, and I have seen it called a tree and not called a tree.

Bamboo is a grass, in the Order Poaceae, so I think it should stay well out of trees. Just my thoughts though :-) HelloMojo 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article ought to make it clear that the tree form has evolved separately in unrelated plant classes as an example of parallel evolution. Larger varieties of bamboo may very well be considered trees, just as large woody perennial beans like locust, or a large woody perennial in the lilly family like the joshia tree. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC) this one of the environmental facts

Twigs

There are important distinctions between branches and twigs. Branches are heavy structural elements, representing fairly mature tissue, that support twigs. Twigs, on the other hand, specifically bear leaves, flowers, fruit, and buds usually have a markedly different bark and appearance from branches. Twigs are critically important in species identification. I'll edit the separate branch and twig articles later to make sure this is reflected. --user:jaknouse

Groups of trees

A small group of trees growing together is called a grove? or copse,

My understanding is that a copse refers to a group of trees that is managed by coppicing rather than simply a 'small group of trees'? quercus robur 15:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I've seen copse used frequently to describe a small stand of trees that have grown completely naturally. One could look it up to be sure though. -lommer 06:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

champion trees

Should champion trees really be included on this page? I think maybe it should have its own page linked from this one. I'm a huge fan of champion trees, but while this page doesn't even really mention trees use as an agricultural product (good or bad, it's pretty relevant)- it does have a whole section on champion trees, something I think should be distinct.

Or how about instead of "champion trees" this section is renamed something like "tree maximums" or the like. The term "champion" usually refers to programs and lists such as American Forests National Register, state champion lists, the UK Tree Register, etc., which are somewhat competitions, hence the concept of a "champion". This segment is more related to the potential maxima of species or trees in general than any lists. Though links or reference to some of those lists are useful.Mar. 2006

I agree that the term "Champion tree" is misleading, and perhaps a seperate article would be more appropriate, possibly summarized in here. 84.238.23.78 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The number 1 tree for girth is incorrect - the figure given is for the circumference, not diameter as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.240.202 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Champion Trees should have it's own page linked from this one. The number one tree for girth should be Tane Mahuta at 13.77m see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tane_Mahuta —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougRW (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cacao

Since when is cacao moved from Sterculiaceae to Malvaceae? Can you provide a source for that? Guettarda 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soil Use Misconception

I added this paragraph earlier today, but an annonymous user took it out:

Contrary to popular misconception, trees do not take soil from their roots in order to grow. Like all plants, they instead use the enegy from sunlight to convert gases in air into simple sugars, a process known are photosynthesis. These sugars are then used by the tree as building-blocks to make branches, roots and leaves.

I'd rather not start an edit war over it, but think the information ought be in the article somewhere. Thoughts? Jwanders 23:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed a typo in your passage. While photosynthesis is the main way trees grow (e.g. they use the carbon from carbon dioxide), trees do get nutrients and water from the soil, so this passage could use some work. I'd want an expert to fix it.

The nutrients that trees extract from soil is via osmosis and the nutrients are converted into a salt state by water.. Trees do not remove mineral soils from the ground. HelloMojo 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The area of soil directly surrounding the roots of a tree are known as the rhizosphere and is well known in the field of ecology to be teeming with complex symbiotic relationships of microorganisms.

Mycorrhizal hyphae form a network of fungal filaments that loosely connect small soil fragments. Cutting and uprooting of trees often kills the local mycorrhizal hyphae leading to soil erosion in proportion with the level of deforestation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaratrouts (talk • contribs)

I.D. this Tree

Does anyone know what kind of tree this is? 71.98.19.72 03:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Loblolly Pine? Do they grow in Wisconsin? You might ask for an I.D. at Talk:Pine. --Allen 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably a red pine, Pinus resinosa.--68.238.127.14 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Try the tree identification program on the web.

oldest trees

see Talk:Lagarostrobos_franklinii --Espoo 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The one on this page is a 2500 year old individual specimen, different from the 10500 year old stand you were talking about. SCHZMO ✍ 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tree Growth - coverage in Wikipedia

Where in Wikipedia would one go to look for an encyclopedic description of tree tip (leader? or top leader?) growth in single-trunk trees like many pines and spruces? I have spent some amount of time poking around Wikipedia in the Tree, Pine, Pinophyta, Spruce, and Evergreen articles, plus many other articles they refer to, and have not been able to find a description of the phenomena. I recall reading about how the tree top-shoots (new growth cells) know to grow taller/straighter than their neighbors many years ago in a book, but do not recall much else. As you can see, I am not a biologist or botanist.

So I don't know if I am just searching in the wrong way within Wikipedia, or if it is merely something that has not yet been stubbed out in Wikepedia. Thanks. N2e 18:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Apical dominance--Melburnian 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point! - I've linked apical dominance now - MPF 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Melburnian and MPF! N2e 00:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a pic of a tree!

Uhh...is it me or is the picture that comes up at the front page a "penis"?? That's not a tree. I'm removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Housefan (talk • contribs) .

Vandalism from User:Ronnyweasle. He replaced pictures on several other pages. SCHZMO ✍ 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know this ability of trees?

I don't know what this property of trees is called and I'm hoping someone out there does. If a sign is nailed to a tree, over time the tree will slowly engulf the sign until it is part of the tree and can not be removed without damaging the tree. An example of it can be found here.

http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1199956624292d29afco1em.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davenewt/119995662/

Does anyone know what this behavior or property is called?
Who8myrice 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As the tree grows into the foreign object, its cambial layer is "wounded" (disturbed) and callus tissue grows around the object to isolate it physiologically from the object. The callus growth can be seen directly to the right of the sign in the externally linked photos. This allows the tree to continue growing and eventually "envelop" the foreign object. The photo on the right shows another example. I'm not aware of a word or short phrase that describes the process, it would be handy if there was one then we could write an article on it :)--Melburnian 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of the ability of trees, is it myth or true that the bulges of unusual form are cancerous, and it is the tree that is pushing them out? I heard that this part of a tree produces very cool designs for woodwork sculpturing, due to the ring patterns. Woody

Have a look at burl Melburnian 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ya my grandfather has placed a number of objects in to trees, a crowbar, paddle, chains, ect. don't think I have any photos but I'll see if I could get any of my cousins to take photos Jedi canuck 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Trees in popular culture section?

I have been thinking. Well, trees are a huge inspiration for many of the arts, (especially photography and music), and I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to create a "Trees in Popular Culture" section to expand the article a bit. If something like this already exists, please post a link, I have a lot of contributions to make. Cheers, woody.

I'm inclined to agree. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Birnam Wood in Macbeth, the Ents in The Lord of the Rings, Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, Grandmother Willow in Disney's Pocahontas, and Barbara Walters's famous question to Katharine Hepburn, and I'm not even trying very hard. Certainly, the topic deserves more discussion than it's getting. Agur bar Jacé (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-trees and contenders

Shouldn't there be a mention of border-line cases like palms and banana plants that are sometimes called trees, and whether and why they don't qualify as trees? mglg_(talk) 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed

Apical dominance, again

The first part, defining just what constitutes a tree, now says :having secondary branches supported on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance . Which is not exactly true. Many decurrent trees do not strongly exert apical dominance, hence their form. Individual limbs or leaders on these trees do, but overall, saying single main stem with apical dominance is a defining feature of anything classified as a tree is incorrect. But I'm not changing anything until I hear more opinions. --Trees4est 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many species of salix, for example, show little or no apical dominance.The Boy that time forgot 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Major tree genera

This list takes up a huge portion of the article's vertical size. It should probably be moved to the end of the encyclopedic content and split into two columns if workable. It might even be better simply to link to such a list, though I can't find any existing 'List of trees' type article that is this extensive. Perhaps the list here should be placed somewhere like List of major tree genera? Richard001 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Life Stages

I removed the statement referring to 30cm being the minimum diameter for sawlogs. Not true across the globe, i.e, minimum top diameter for softwood sawlogs in Britain is 16cm (under bark).The Boy that time forgot 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference for above,- Anon. (1990). Classification and Presentation of Softwood Sawlogs. Forestry Commission Field Book 9. HMSO. London. ISBN 0-11-710280-6

Breathing

My Norwegian teacher told me that trees could breath. Is there any truth to this, because the Wikipedia page doesn't say anything about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.93.161.12 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Champion Trees

This page seems rather inaccurate and out of date, perhaps due to the editing restrictions.

For example, the Gymosperm database lists the New Zealand Kauri as the third most massive species in the world, with Tane Mahuta having an estimated wood volume of over 500m^3 and hence larger than the western red cedar. Another living tree, Te Matua Ngahere has a diameter of over 5 meters at breast height, while trees of the nineteenth century were measured with diameters of over six meters and probably the largest millable timber volume of any recorded tree (e.g., D. E. Hutchins 1919). See also the wikipedia article on this tree species which is fairly accurate.

It would also seem to be appropriate to have a second section for champion trees not living based on reliable records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Waddell (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on champion trees lists the Australia Mountain-ash as third tallest at 97m. If you follow the link to the Wikipedia page on Mountain-ash it refers to a 114.3m specimen, measured by theodolite and tape measure after it was felled. Should we update this page to be consistant with the one on Mountain-ash ? Thoughts ? Robprain 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a list of the tallest trees ever or a list of the ones still alive? Think outside the box 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How many tree types are there?

- Can I just get a count of roughly how many tree types there are ? --terlmann

It helps the environment alot.

does anyone know if there is a list that I can find with the types of trees in each state of the US? Nextandbestchristine 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

With the nearly daily vandalism, does anyone think it may be a good idea to semiprotect the page, at least for a little while?--Trees4est 11:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Boy that time forgot 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection was rejected, Wikipedia:Requests for protection, the admin felt that there had not been enough activity. The Boy that time forgot 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to request semiprotect again? Lots and lots of vandalism over the past couple weeks. Rickterp 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, trees do NOT grow in toilet bowls.

Really needs work

The last edit that isn't totally screwed (as of right now, as far as I can tell) is 14:36 on March 2. The next addition has stayed on for some reason, poorly written and superfluous, though the environmental implications of trees should be more thoroughly explained. There have been numerous subsequent edits, mostly vandalism and reverts, but some other gobbeldygook (almost literally) has stayed around and the few good additions need to be kept, including the tags; this page needs help. I don't have the time now, does anyone else?--Trees4est 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a typo in the 'damage' section (The parenthesis and period at the end are likely relics of old edits. I cannot, however, fix it, as the page has been locked.):
"One reason for confusion about tree damage from construction involves the dormancy of trees during winter. )."

Done. Thanks! Krasanen (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Two years later, there are some improvements, and some good information, but the page still does need work. I'm think I'm going to take a stab at some major edits; my biggest problem is a lack of WP formatting skills. "Damage" and "Tree value estimation", in particular, need to be separated somehow, or at least edited. It's possible that "Record-breaking trees" should be severely shortened and linked to a separate page. I would love some help with this.--Trees4est (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Units

This article is in SI units throughout, except one editor continues to change only some of the units to metric (on the historical basis that Darwin used English units). I have changed it twice, and placed vandal warnings on the editor's talk page, after pointing out twice to this editor that the place to discuss these revision is on the article's talk page. It is clear that User:The way, the truth, and the light has no intention of working within Wikipedia style guidelines or acknowledging them in any way. So, here, who thinks that anytime Darwin is quoted on Wikipedia it should be in English units? Well, this isn't the place to discuss this, the place to discuss policy or style changes are in those areas. KP Botany 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, should the discussion in this article of Darwin's measurements of a tree be English first, with metric in parantheses for the first two instances, then metric only for the third measurement in the same sentences? Obviously not, and I've stacked it against answering yes, but far be it for me to present some other editor's arguments for them, when they'd rather just edit war over the issue. KP Botany 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style takes the position that if there is a dispute about the ordering of unit system measurements, the source unit should be first, see [1]. Darwin's measurements were likely in feet as per being the primary unit in the cited source and others, see [2]. Now, on the matter of this "dubius" vs. "anomalous" thing, I think a better and more neutral wording would be that it "may be an anomaly as..." since this the word dubius carries some implication of falsehood, in which case there should be a reference that indicates that. Citing a source and then saying there's a likelihood that it's false is not really good fact construction...However, I did reword it so that it says "up to 130 ft", as the source says since otherwise the sentence implied that there was only one of that size and could be interpreted as that size range being uncommon. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I changed it back to '40 m' because converting 130 ft to 39.6 m is false precision. I care more about avoiding that than the order of the units, actually. The way, the truth, and the light 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, mixing units is fine. Then, please go in and change every single unit to reflect its source, Cquan. One of the most important style guidelines on Wikipedia that prevents articles from being a mish-mash of SI/English, American/British spellings is "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." If you want a list of 50 measurements and insist they all be written SI or American units first depending upon their source, then go for it, change the entire article--change every article that sources science over the past 400 years in the English world, making sure its the proper English weights and measures for all older quotations, SI for newer quotations in everywhere but the USA, and American units for modern USA sources--in fact, I'll propose it at the community board. And, please, feel free to go right ahead and even mix units in the same sentence as you've done with this article. I don't think, however, that people will look at this so narrowly as you did, Cquan. I think people will say, this will make Wikipedia harder to read, harder to research, and will lead to silly results like what is in the Tree article, where 50 measurements have SI first, and one has English weights and measures first in part of the sentence, but drops down to SI in the same sentence. KP Botany 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't even have turned this sentence in on a paper in third grade:

"Charles Darwin reported finding Fitzroya cupressoides with trunk circumferences of up to 130 ft (40 m)[4], implying a diameter of about 40 ft (12 m), but this may be an anomaly as the largest known are less than 5 m.[5]"

KP Botany 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good section that needs rewritten to comply with this use the source:

1. Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens: 115.55 m (379.1 ft.)
2. Coast Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii: 100.3 m (329.1 ft.)
3. Australian Mountain-ash Eucalyptus regnans: 318.2 ft. (97.0 m)
4. Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis: 96.7 m (317.3 ft.)
5. Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum: 94.9 m (307.1 ft.)

These all need changed to cubic feet:

1. Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum: 55,040 ft3, General Sherman
2. Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens: 36,890 ft3, Del Norte Titan tree
3. Western Redcedar Thuja plicata: 17,650 ft3
4. Kauri Agathis australis: 400 m³, Tane Mahuta tree (total volume, including branches, 516.7 m³)

The Agathis will be found to have been measured by the Aussies first, and they will want it referenced to the Australian measurement, so only the first three should be in cubic feet, and the final one can remain in cubic meters.

How about posting a question about this on the International arborist tree forum TreeWorld.info which is based out of Australia. Personally, I say go with the most recognized and used measurement. But it wouldn't hurt to get some Australian feedback. Also, a few of those Aussie arborists on the forum may have a few things to add to this article.Mdvaden 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with the stoutest trees in compliance with this policy of going with the source: The stoutest single-trunk species in diameter, excluding baobabs, are:

1. Jequitibá Carinaria excelsa Casar.: 23 ft.
2. Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum: 885 cm
3. Kauri Agatha australis: 8.5 m
4. Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens: 7.44 m
5. Eucalyptus obliqua: 6.72 m
6. Western Redcedar: Thuja plicata, 599 cm

The General Grant tree is given in cm, as is the T. plicata. Having measured the things with the US Forest Service, they do tend to measure dbh in cm, so we'll need feet, meters, and centimeters as units. Looks lovely. KP Botany 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking back on it, that sentence is a little confused...it should probably say the largest known extant examples are less than 5 m or something like that. And no, I used a very specific bit of the MOS referring to disputed cases, not in general:

"If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second"

At the time (as far as I saw), this was the only disputed instance, so that's where I applied it. The MOS does state to use SI as the main units, but with exceptions:

"For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so"

Since this figure is (presumed) from a primary source, that is (at least a bit) compelling. In any case, the main dispute seems to be about precision, so feel free to toggle it around now that it's clear the order isn't that important. Also, I just offered it as a (passing by) compromise to an obvious edit war, so no need to bite my head off. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the source, the largest known extant example is 426 cm. It's not from a primary source, you can tell from the url--Darwin didn't publish his data on the web. Precision is a matter of original research, we don't know the figures they calculated from, so we shouldn't be adjusting precision, or at least show me where it says about rounding, or we should know what 2.54 cm to the inches is....

The problem is User:The way, the truth, and the light was asked repeatedly to discuss the issue instead of reverting. He chose to revert. This user has already been blocked for edit warring, and he chose, soon after being blocked for edit warring, to engage in an edit war again, instead of discussing the issues, when asked to

As to false precision do either of you realize that 2.54cm to the inch is precise? 130 ft to (39.6 m) is 3 digits in both units, and 3 digits in the conversion factor, as for 40 ft (12 m), it's got 2 digits in the feet, and 2 in the meters--exactly where is the "false precision?"[3] KP Botany 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I realize there's probably no actual "primary source" on the web for Darwin's work in this case, but it's pretty obvious it would have been in feet since he was an English scientist and the SI convention wasn't around at the time. And strictly speaking, the convention on "precision" says you only count significant digits until you hit a zero, so in theory 130 is only 2 sig. figs (in engineering you actually write 130. with the decimal if you want to be completely clear)...but again, I doubt Darwin was working with that notion and 130 is likely an estimate/rough measurement anyway. Anyway, on the revert war thing, you should discuss it on the talk page and if you can't agree, let a consensus of editors decide. I'm not disputing anything about the conduct in that sense, but I thought maybe a compromise may smooth things out...guess I was horribly wrong there...so sorry. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty standard for sig figs is "Zeros at the end of a number and to the right of a decimal are significant, for example:" like the Wikipedia article says (it could be wrong), and that's how I've always used them. 1.3 * 10 sqared has 2 sig figs, but 130 has 3.

Yes, I know you're supposed to discuss it on the talk page, but I couldn't convince The way of that. And others have failed to convince him of that to the point where he was blocked from editing while he thought of it. This block apparently had no impact, as The way has no intention of using the talk page to discuss the issue and reach a consensus.

Making a decision about the editing of one sentence in an article, without looking at the readability of the whole article, just creates the sort of second rate articles Wikipedia does not need. Why not look at the entire article and see that probably a number of these other units were given in English weights and measures, while another large portion come from sources written in SI. What should be done, should one sentence be changed to match the source? Why only one sentence? Should all parts be changed to match the source? This article is rich with measurements, rigid consistency will keep the user from getting confused. I think the Darwin line should just be taken out if it has to be written one way that reduces the overall readability of the article. It adds nothing to do this. KP Botany 05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, lose the sentence. In all honesty, maybe I'm trying a tad too hard to adhere to AGF in this case...that "compromise" idea gave me a headache. In any case, now that this is back on the "consensus determining" discussion, the sentence should go or be completely generalized liberally using terms like "about" or "approximately". Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to respond to someone whose method of discussion appears to be hurling insults, but I will explain myself. Regardless on how he got it, there is no way that Darwin's 130' has three figures of precision; it should not be converted to 39.6 m. You have decided to have this discussion in two places, the other of which I have read. The comparison to the Centimetre article is silly; that conversion is defined to be exact. Your analogies above were obvious exaggerations and not worthy of response. I will change the order, but only because I do not want to dispute with someone whose intention is to stir up trouble. The way, the truth, and the light 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So says the user who refused invitations to discuss the issue on the talk page, opting to just revert instead,. If you don't know what significant figures are, that's fine, though, there's an article on it in Wikipedia where you can learn about it, and information on the web. Your reading Darwin's mind is original research and pure speculation on your part, though, and is no part of producing an encyclopedia. Cquan agrees to the sentence being removed, so I'll remove it. KP Botany 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ummmmm......

Link

I once found a website that could guide you to figuring out what the name of a tree was. It would ask you a series of questions (What do the leaves look like? The bark? etc.) and then give you the result. If someone else finds that website (I don't remember where it is), it would be an excellent candidate for the external links section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found two good ones, http://www.arborday.org/trees/whattree/ , http://www.oplin.org/tree/ helped me identify thornless honeylocust/Gleditsia triacanthos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.151.193 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

fjdshg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.125.123 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Trees A tree is a woody plant. Trees come in all shapes and sizes but most of them measure around 10 cm of diameter. If it wasn't for trees we could have been dead because we need clean oxygen (air) to survive and trees produce it. Trees have an important role in producing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By: M.D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.125.123 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam

• The Tree Bark Game Compare and learn to identify the barks of several common trees.
• The Tree Leaf Identification Game Learn to identify the leaves of several common trees.

Can these external links be added to the main 'Tree' page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw81245 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they are spam. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Ward3001 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting that the link to "Pooktre" be removed as spam. His Wikiness (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tallest Trees based on today's specimens.

Claiming that the tallest verified Douglas fir is 326 feet is the same as murdering all NBA players over 7 ft, and claiming the tallest confirmed player is 6'11.

Thousands upon thousands of acres of Old Growth Douglas Fir have been wiped out through 150 years of logging and forest fires. Perhaps just a handful of a percent of the original Old Growth, live on. Loggers in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia had certainly come accross Douglas Fir which exceeded the Doerner fir in stature and volume. Lynn Valley N. Vancouver had been exstensively logged, and its tallest recorded specimen was 415 feet in 1902. If this is unbelievable, then one can atleast believe in the 350 ft tall firs felled there in 1907. 340, and 360 ft Douglas Fir were felled in Cloversdale by loggers, in 1881, and measured by foresters. Hastings mill on Burrard Inlet recorded their largest tree at almost 400 feet, felled in South Vancouver in 1896. Or how about the Westholme Giant, a 1,500 year old 350 foot Douglas Fir blown over in 1919, on Vancouver Island... Not to mention the giant firs of Nisqually, and Mineral, Wash.

Most of these turn of the century measurements were taken after the trees were felled--reducing error dramatically. Measurements taken while the tree still stood, are of course suspect.

I simply feel the article needs to stress the point that old measurements may not be so fantastic when one takes into account 150 years of logging, and 90-95 % deforestation of Old Growth.

--71.222.40.209 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All of that would be a fine addition to the article, if written a little more neutrally. Do you know of references for any of those? —EncMstr 05:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

solitary trees

I feel that someone should produce a section on noteworthy solitary trees, such as the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Ténéré

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5245384471

Just a thought...

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.185.7 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

I need some help with my tree. Here is a link to it's site: http://www.ncrcag.com/Tree/tree.html --MahaPanta (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cariniana claims

Removed these, as they are not adequately documented. The first one "Cariniana excelsa" from Hartesveldt is only a second- or third-hand report mentioned incidentally in an article primarily about Sequoiadendron, and is not backed up by reference to original details; the cited name itself is not a valid name but a synonym (of Cariniana estrellensis [4]), and searches in both books and the internet under either the correct name or the synonym do not show any support for Hartesveldt's figure, nor even any suggestion that the species ever reaches notable sizes, let alone being the second-stoutest tree in the world. If that really was the case, one would expect numerous references (particularly from Brazilian websites, where the species occurs), and they simply don't exist. This is clearly an error in the Hartesveldt text, perhaps another girth/diameter misunderstanding (divide the figure by pi, and a more reasonable 'large tree' results). The second one (Carinaria legalis, estimate of 3,020 years) the cited reference itself reports that the estimate is considered very dubious by local scientists and is subject to further investigation; we should not include it until it is better verified. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of material from Parts of a tree

User:Kushan I.A.K.J has started an article on Parts of a tree. The article was redirected by User:RHaworth, but reverted by the original author. I (User:Whpq]) also redirected to Tree#Morphology, and again the redirect was reverted. The reasoning being that User:Kushan I.A.K.J feels that there is material for a separate article. I've placed a merge proposal forward, and I've asked him to discuss his rationale here so other editors can easily find and join in a discussion.

My reasoning for merging any material into the Morphology section is that the Part of a tree article is identical in coverage to the Morphology section in the tree article. There is no need for a fork of content as the parts of a tree are adequately covered in the tree article, and the article is not of such a size that an article split would be in order. Furthermore, the other specific parts of a tree have individual articles and material specific to each individual part and those articles would be the natural home for additional information. As such, I see the Parts of a tree article as entirely redundant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. A classic content fork. Absolutely no need for a duplicate article. Kushan, your comment at Talk:Parts of a tree about creating incoming links simply carries no weight at all. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge, as I have researched into to this and found out that it does deserve an article as there is much websites out there which give this article info. Also that article can become very large as there is still more info out there to add. Furthermore many people, when researching, research for "Parts of a tree" than a specific part of it, so yet another reason to keep it as it will attract much more people!--Emperor13 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I was researching the article when I found this!!!--Emperor13 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

comment - a redirect, which was what was previously put in place would allow people searching for "parts of a tree" to find the material as the redirect would palce them in the morphology section of the tree article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Empeoror13, you have been accused before of collaborative voting. I think that you are doing it again. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge of course...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think there is plenty of scope for a separate in-depth article on the morphology of trees. The existing morphology section Tree#Morphology is too short. The explanations are incomplete and confusing. The use of wikilinks as indirect explanations of technical terms is a very poor substitute for having good in-text explanations. Diagrams to illustrate the technical terms would be very helpful, but there are none at all. The whole section is most unsatisfactory, but expanding it is not the right solution because the Tree article is already far too long; it takes well over 20 pages of scrolling to view the entire article in my browser. It really needs to be shortened. There are also too many unwiki-like lists. For all these reasons, I believe that a separate, in-depth article on tree morphology would be appropriate and useful. I therefore oppose merging. Please note, I am not endorsing the previous content of Parts of trees, which clearly needs work. - Neparis (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

comment at issue is whether the material is an overlap. Clearly, it is a 100% overlap. If the morphoogy section is too short, then it should be expanded. That the page scrolls somewhat is not a good reason to split. There is a table of contents to aid in navigation, and the reason for the scolling is actually the list of Major tree genera. so if scrolling were truly the issue, then the logical thing to do would be to spin the list off to a separate page with a See also link rather than removing the substance of an article about trees to a separate child article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

comment - Can you point to any specific evidence that supports your view that there is, as you put it, "100% overlap"? Secondly, since spun-off articles always have significant overlap with the corresponding sections of the parent articles, why do you think overlap is a good criterion for judging mergers? The table of contents helps navigate an article if you are looking at the top of the article, but it becomes invisible and is therefore of no help once you scroll further down. It also does not actually solve the problem of the article being too long. The Tree article would still be too long in my opinion, even if the list of major tree genera were spun off into a separate article, as it should be. I agree the existing section Tree#Morphology could and should be expanded. However, I believe there is clear scope for a separate in-depth article on tree morphology. There is enough potential material on morphology to make a very long, useful, separate article. - Neparis (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

comment If we were to take you suggestion that the tree article have the list and the morphology section forked out to their own articles, what you would have remaining is an article that mostly talks about champion trees. I fail to see how fracturing the article in this way helps the READERS of the encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

questions - What is your evidence of "100% overlap"? Why do you think overlap is a good criterion for judging mergers? - Neparis (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply Because the very first line from the Morphology section is The basic parts of a tree are the roots, trunk(s), branches, twigs and leaves. I think that can be about as clear and obvious as it can possibly be. And as for why 100% overlap is a good reason to merge; WP:MERGE, and WP:FORK are good content guidelines. If the current morphology section were to grow to such a size that it became unwieldy in this article, then forking would make sense. But it has not grown to this size. And none of the material from the redirected parts of a tree article merged in here would appreciably change the size. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate articles, somehow. I see room for an article on Tree morphology (or parts of a tree although that doesn't seem like as good a name). Or perhaps several articles (e.g. one for monocots, one for everything else). The section in Tree would then summarize, per Wikipedia:Summary style. There's a lot of material which isn't covered here yet, including the way that branch and trunk wood interleave, heartwood, various kinds of tree injuries, the way that sap flows and gets divided between branches and trunk, etc. In short, I'm agreeing (at least mostly) with Neparis (talk · contribs), and am not taking a position on which text should serve as the starting point for the proposed separate article. Kingdon (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kingdon, there is plenty of info that is not, and can be included in a page covering Tree structure, including Morphology and physiology, including evolutionary development. thus no reason not to have a few different pages - since to do this subject somewhat thoroughly would produce a very long article here . Hardyplants (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: a summary style section on Morphology would make good sense if the current morphology section were to grow. And I certainly support doing that when justified. But as it stands right now, is it justified? Note that parts of a tree is not a fork based on the morphology section. I don't see that it has reached that point yet. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Kushan, you already have this article in your very own wiki. I submit that the only reason you are pushing it here is out of vanity and to promote your wiki. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-No, not at all, when I was reading through Wikipedia I found out that the article didn't exist, I wanted to add it, But wasn't sure how to begin, but since I already had it there, I just took it to start off with and also gave credit to the authors since that's the rule of GFDL.....--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please stop being disingenuous. The article on the Nature Wikia was created by you (User:Kushan_I.A.K.J), at 12:27 January 8, 2007 according to the article history on the Nature Wikia. And the Nature Wikia was also started by you as stated in the page. So it doesn't really seem like you just happened to find the article was not on Wikipedia. A quick look at the tree article would have shown that the material did in fact exist, and most editors would have used that as the basis for expansion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-I never denied neither the fact that I founded the Wiki nor the fact that I started the article, also I did not have a look at the Tree article back then(not up to that section anyway)...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I apologize for misinterpreting your statement. However, not seeing a major section in the tree article specifically about the parts of a tree would seem to indicate that you did very little research and reading in the rush to contribute the article contents from your nature wikia. -- Whpq (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-Actually I did a lot of research, when I searched for "Parts of a Tree" on Google, Wikipedia did not come first, it didn't even come on the first search page. You can check that for your self. Also I couldn't find any suitable enough text on the other sites, and some were copyright, so I remembered the article at my wiki........--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - what I meant was that if you started at the article on trees, which is the logical starting point, reading the tree article, or even skimming the article would have shown that the material was present. And based on the timestamps of your article on the nature wikia and the creation of the "parts of a tree" article here on wikipedia, it would appear that you were looking to add the specifica material from your wikia article rather than being unable to "find any suitable enough text on the other sites". -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-I only searched for "parts of a tree" and also I created it there first when I researched it and then remembered Wikipedia soon after.....--Kushan I.A.K.J 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Exploding tree article

I am proposing the article "Exploding tree" be merged into Tree.

It is my opinion the Exploding tree article is really standalone trivia, but rather than nominate it as such, I would ask those in favor to incorporate those facts they deem important enough into the main tree article.

Of course trees have been known to explode, and of course exploding trees have appeared in literature, but does this really warrant an encyclopedia article? Blood vessels and buildings and frozen beer cans explode too, but they have not articles.

From What Wikipedia is not: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."
Also: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Do we find lists of exploding items in our Britannica? Do we find bulleted lists of every literary reference to said items? I think not. I'll leave the discussion here.Nickrz (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exploding trees? W, as they say, TF? What surprised me was the number of people who have been editing on that page, and how long it's been around. I don't know why it's not been moved for deletion, really. A page about an event that happens to trees? Why not have "chainsaw cut trees" or "tornadoed trees"? Maybe "bullet-hit deer" or "cat-eaten mice" are next?--Trees4est (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should delete the Exploding tree page as the previous commentator said. However, people do seem to think such pages are encyclopedic and who am I to disagree. Therefore, consider that we SHOULD NOT MERGE and pollute this relatively sensible tree page. SuzanneKn (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything important enough to merge into the Tree article. I will remove the merge tags and add {{notability}} to Exploding tree

Actually we have all these related articles. Crazy!

{{exploding animals}}--Apoc2400 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Largest Trees & Stoutest Trees

Been taking part in dialogue lately at the Wikipedia Sequioa article about Del Norte Titan Redwood pertaining to statistics. Comparing that page to this article, there seems to be a similar component that is worth discussing at the same time. The subject is the largest redwoods. This Tree article here, lists the "Stoutest" redwood as one in Prarie Creek redwoods state park. My guess is the redwood Illuvatar as what's suggested. But the Lost Monarch is supposed to be even stouter with a greater diameter at breast height / DBH. Recently, I visited and measured Del Norte Titan and The Lost Monarch myself.

Redwoods Grove of Titans and photos. Indeed, the Lost Monarch is at least 7.7 meters in diameter as I've read online.

The Lost Monarch is also supposed to be the largest redwood for volume, with over 42,000 cubic feet. This is the part in the Sequioa (genus) article that seems to need clarification too. Del Norte Titan is a bit over 36,000 cubic feet. Dr. Steve Sillett would have been the person who measured these trees, and one image caption at his webpage photos (Humboldt State University) indicates that The Lost Monarch has over 42,000 cubic feet. That's what Dr. Sillett wrote there with the image. He also wrote in the caption that The Lost Monarch is over 29 feet in diameter. For accuracy's sake, he did not specify the name "Lost Monarch", but that largest redwood in the image should be the Lost Monarch. It was in The American Journal of Botany (Volume 90)2 pages 255-261 2003, where Dr. Sillett listed The Lost Monarch as 7.7 meters DBH.Mdvaden (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be the one editing this page ... but the section about the stoutest tree makes a consession to boababs very weakly: Although baobabs have some of the highest girth measurements of any trees, no accurate measurements are currently available, but probably do not exceed 10-11 m (33–36 ft) diameter. The average boabab ... not the stout ones particularly but just the average, of all boababs that exist, has an average of 12m or less. Three of the famous, larger ones, all have girths of about 50m. They swell and all but they aren't balloons.  :) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Photo uploaded Fitz Mackins (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the photo, since, other than being a tree (and an unidentified one at that), it doesn't add anything to the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem about the oldest tree

Can someone told me whether the Norway Spruce found in Sweden is the oldest one or not ?Anymore strong evidence showing this conclusion?--Lokionly (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "oldest tree". The Pando clone of quaking aspen may be 80,000 years old. What makes the Norway Spruce clone "older" is that there are remains that can be carbon-dated at 9550 years; the age of the Pando clone is estimated from growth rate. Pinus longaeva still holds the record for oldest trunks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Parallel evolution versus Convergent evolution

That the tree form evolved more than once from unrelated taxa is an example of convergent evolution, not parallel evolution as stated in the article or mentioned in discussions on this page. --Chris_London_1955 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2008 (GMT)

How so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Parallel versus Convergent evolution

An example of convergent evolution is icthyosaurs and dolphins, which closely resemble one another. They are descended from different classes (archosaurs vs mammals) of tetrapod that returned to the sea. Parallel evolution refers to the same feature arising more than once in closely related taxa, for example knuckle walking may have arisen independently in chimpanzees and gorillas, rather than just once in a common ancestor. --Chris_London_1955 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (GMT)

The Wikipedia articles Parallel evolution and Convergent evolution are instructive, especially the former: "Parallel evolution is the independent evolution of similar traits, starting from a similar ancestral condition due to similar environments or other evolutionary pressures. Frequently this is the situation in more closely related lineages, where several species respond to similar challenges in a similar way." So the emphasis is on the similarity of the ancestral traits more than the relationship of the ancestors.

If we take the definition of "tree" from this article ("A tree is a perennial woody plant. It is most often defined as a woody plant that has secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance."), and we were to consider Lepidodendron, Pinus, Cocos, Calamites, and Dendrosenecio all trees, then I agree with you, since their closest non-tree relatives have a diversity of growth forms (not just because their ancestors are distantly related).--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do trees die of old age?

In other words, given adequate conditions, lack of parasites, etc., can trees live indefinitely; or do their life systems begin to break down after a set lifespan, as do those of animals? Thank you, Applejuicefool (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to this website and search.Zheliel (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Zheliel (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Trees over 375 feet

The article says that trees may grow as tall as 375 feet (114,3 metres). However, the tallest living Redwood officially known is called Hyperion, and was measured at 379 feet 2 inches (115,55 metres) in Sept. 2006. Hyperion was still growing at a rate of roughly 4 inches per year since last measurement, and may possibly stand c. 379 feet 8 inches as of 2008.

The articles does not give any relevance to the historically reported Douglas-Fir such as the Lynn Valley, Mineral, or Nisqually trees--and this absence is perhaps warranted as measurements were made over 100 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.75.207 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Quina

Hi. I know nothing about trees, but I just rescued the Quina article (see its history), which I think could probably use some work. Fintor (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Quina another name for Myroxylon? Fintor (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trees may grow as tall as 380 feet.

The article says trees may grow up to 375 feet--which suggests that this is the maximum height any tree can grow. This is a false fact. There is a living Redwood tree in California that is 379.1 feet tall, and this rounds up to 380 feet. The Article should at least say that trees may grow as tall as 380 feet (not taking into account historical records of taller trees, and the scientific evidence of maximal tree height). --75.175.55.204 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the tree has grown since that was written? It would be better to replace that with documented records, and maybe whatever tested, surviving theory is available about maximum tree height. —EncMstr (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The tree Hyperion (tree) was last measured in September of 2006 at 115,55 metres or 379 ft 1 inch. That was nearly 2 years ago and healthy Redwoods of that size grow 3-6 inches taller each year. I would expect Hyperion is now about 379 ft 7 inches tall if not damaged by wind or the elements-- you could call that 380 feet. --75.175.55.204 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tree growth

I think there should be a separate article on tree growth, or a much more comprehensive covering of it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.220.147 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second that. The article has a great deal of information about the tallest and largest trees, but is badly lacking in information on the life cycle of trees. There are good questions to be answered about trees that are not addessed at all, such as how quickly trees grow (the previous poster's question), life cycle patterns of trees (the question that brought me here), tree habitat ranges, the effects of trees on local ecosystems (seriously, English has multiple words just to describe places where trees grow; why does the article on trees not talk about that?), plant and animal species symbiotic with trees, and so on. There's room for improvement here, even if it's only a small paragraph and a link to an article focusing upon the secondary topic. Wyvern (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Trees

Can we add a link, perhaps in the "See Also" section, to the article "Evolutionary History of Plants" and it's sub-section on the "Evolution of Trees?" Badlermd (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Trees that are used for building houses have 100's of different trees in the boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.159.8 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Champion Trees

According to this website, the tallest tree stands at approx. 150m. Well? Should it be changed?Zheliel (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So why don't the word reliable or the word living or current appear in the section?Zheliel (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes

I say Yes. Zheliel (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No

I say No. Zheliel (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The list in Tree article is a list of the tallest reliably measured species. See the story of that 150m tall tree for example here. Krasanen (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Zheliel (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Zheliel (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Root Systems

I didn't find any information about root systems of different types of trees. I am currently looking for this information, especially which trees have tap roots. Does anyone have the knowledge to add such a section, or can you point me to it if it already exists elsewhere? I'm working on developing a tree-planting program in Indonesia. People here are so fearful of trees falling down during the rainy season that they prune off many or all of the branches - sometimes at the wrong time or too extremely, causing the death of the tree. I want to propose the use of tap root trees so there is no need for this excessive pruning. Reveurgam 125.163.208.245 (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot my password.)

Unfortunately there is very little information about tropical tree species in Wikipedia, as the majority of the editors live probably in temperate zones. You can try to ask User:Sepilok2007 who, according to his user page, is a Dipterocarp specialist. Krasanen (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

and cats suck dogs nuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.150.249 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

if you need data for this article check http://www.pollenlibrary.com/ they have been recording pollen trends for 20 years and could provide data for this article or please mention the site on the tree page 207.106.86.85 (talk)

Adding that info would violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To justify the addition, you would need reliable sources that verify the usefulness of your site. PollenLibrary.com is a promotional site which cannot be used as a source for this verification. JTSchreiber (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Classification

Humbly suggest the classification section mention the helpful term "deciduous", which refers to a tree that sheds its leaves at the end of its growing season. Mtheophila (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you recognize this?

Hi guys, any ideas what this "process" is called? And does anyone know where this photo might look good on the wiki? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The process is secondary growth. The image might be useful there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind adding it there please, I have no idea what to put in the thumbnail. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

links

So, I think the most recent link should go, as well as the link to a .pdf of trees of Kansas (as nice as it may be). The site could use some more good links (conifers.org, nativetreesociety.org, maybe?). Anyone have an objection to removing those two mentioned above, or does anyone have any excellent sites to link to?--Trees4est (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go 4 it. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Krasanen (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, though I'd like to see a few more international links. Krasanen, I hope you support my deleting your link; no offense, it's very interesting, but maybe stretching a bit for this entry.--Trees4est (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the links you deleted ("Shade and Ornamental Trees for Kansas" and "Discover Living Constructions on Earth!") has been added by me. Or what do you mean? Krasanen (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, misinterpreted a "compare" page. By the way, about the baobab— as far as anyone knows, has that tree been shown to be an individual rather than a clump?--Trees4est (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I try to find it out. Note that the Árbol del Tule (Taxodium mucronatum) is probably a clump of three trunks, though of the same clone. Krasanen (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for external link

Maybe this is a nice link to add in the external links list: http://users.telenet.be/sequoiadendron/en/california.html#tallest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.35.195 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trees grow up to 379 feet?

I suppose the article only considers trees which are still alive as the tallest representatives of how tall trees can ever become--giving no regard to documented trees 80 or 100 years ago. That's like murdering all NBA players over 6 ft 9, and finding a single 7 ft 0 dude and saying he's the tallest an NBA player can ever become--which would be false, because there have been players up to 7 ft 7 in the league.

The industrial logging of the world's pre-industrial primordial forests, is a true shame. To say that trees can grow up to "379 feet", just because that's the tallest living tree known today after 90-95% of the forest was destroyed (Old growth Redwood, and Douglas Fir) is, I believe, a flagrant ignorance, and an insult to America's coniferous giants of the past.

I suggest we change the article, so that it indicates that the tallest tree alive is thought to be 379 feet.

--75.175.76.175 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. You wrote "an insult to America's coniferous giants". Don't forget also Eucalyptus regnans has perhaps reached height over 115 m (379 ft). Krasanen (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

--Very good point. In fact, if numbers are anything, there are far more reports of Eucalyptus Regnans having reached 400 ft than there are for the Douglas-fir. --75.175.76.175 (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's almost certain that there were much taller trees in the past, most historical height records are notoriously unreliable, so it would be nearly impossible to cite historical measurements without an asterisk, so to speak. Most current measurements are inaccurate, for that matter. "Champion" lists have little to no fact-checking, are poorly measured, and document multi-stemmed trees as individuals, vastly inflating many girth measurements. About all we can rely on for factual accuracy are those either climbed and measured, or measured using the more modern laser/transit-based instruments.--Trees4est (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

- I am not sure where the conclusion is based that most historical height records are notoriously unreliable. This seems to be a rather lazy and unfounded statement. Those credible 1st and 2nd hand reports made by State Foresters and lumbermen are based off "felled" trees, and have been measured prostrate with steel tape, chain, and/or were cut into logs of a given length. Accurate numbers were needed for loggers to determine board foot volume and or if the mill could accommodate the size of the logs. I would find a ground measurement to be far more accurate than any estimation of a standing tree, including laser or clinometer methods. If you believe both current and historical tree height measurements are inaccurate, then is there any way to satisfactorily satisfy your skepticism? I might also ask, what proof is there Hyperion is really 379 feet? -- I agree with Krasanen, a compromise of vantage could be accommodated in the section regarding tree height. --75.175.81.187 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Most documented heights that are recirculated through literature are tape-drawn clinometer measurements by foresters using the calculation where from some set distance from the tree, the angle (A) to the top is measured, then computing tan(A) x distance to base = height of the tree, a method fraught with errors, most commonly because it assumes the high point of the tree is over the base, which is very often untrue.Check here for some good information on measuring. Felled trees are difficult to measure accurately, because the crown usually comes to rest in a very different configuration than when it was standing, especially with more decurrent species. Measuring for board-feet does not have to be that accurate, either, and there is also the fact that the "foot" wasn't officially standardized before 1959; though in reality it was uniform before then, as you get into older and older measurements by people of varying knowledge there is more chance for error. Charles Darwin reported Fitzroya to 12.6m in diameter. Could that be right? Maybe, but it's also possible that he measured a multi-trunked tree. You asked what proof there is that Hyperion is 379 feet, the answer is that Steve Sillett climbed it and tape-dropped it, which is the most accurate way to measure height there is.--Trees4est (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

-Indeed, certainly the most accurate estimation of standing height is to climb the tree as Sillett has done-- which is something like 99.9% accurate-- I agree, by this standard all other methods would be considered relatively "inaccurate." But the question remains, just HOW inaccurate? George Cornthwaite a surveyor from Thorpdale, Australia c. 1881 measured a Eucalyptus Regnans at 370 feet tall with Theodolite and chain. The tree was later felled, and he recorded its length at 375 feet. His initial method of measurement was 98.66% in agreement with prostrate length -- I would consider this a great example of a historical measurement. If this sort of accuracy can be applied to straight trunked conifers (Douglas fir, Redwood) then I highly doubt the felled length will exceed 2-3% of standing height--of course that depends on individual tree branch configuration. Board footage is not a precise measure, but is a good indication of roughly what the volume of the tree contained as merchantable product and extrapolations of tree size can often be calculated from that if further details are given. Most clinometer based measurements that contain any amount of accuracy are generally within 5 feet of standing tree height if conducted properly by a trained forester. I suppose 98% accuracy could be considered "notoriously unreliable", but given the tools, topography and historical circumstances, I would consider this extremely accurate and valuable data certainly worthy of inclusion to any serious study of tree height. --75.175.81.187 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Most clinometer based measurements that contain any amount of accuracy are generally within 5 feet of standing tree height if conducted properly by a trained forester." I strongly disagree with this statement. I don't know if you checked out the links above, but they show examples of how errors of that method often add up to over 20%. I've personally seen it multiple times, myself.--Trees4est (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

- I read the lists, and yes the laser based methods are ridiculously accurate, and the clinometer based measurements are embarrassingly innacurate. But those seem to be extreme inaccuracies that made it into the literature, rather than the norm. If anything, it goes to show how much more accurate it is to measure a fallen tree, and even ENTS compares it's laser based measurement of a Tuliptree versus its felled length, with 1.9% error(tree #10). Historical records of recently felled trees (esp. conifers) are much harder to chalk up as unreliable, especially if they were measured by trained forester with steel tape-- or were sectioned by lumbermen--buckers.--75.175.81.187 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

- Not to drag this conversation on... But my Suunto MP5-360 clinometer just arrived via UPS, and I spent my day measuring tree heights in my neighborhood & backyard from different distances and angles, and I found it to be remarkably accurate (+/- 1 or 2 feet for tall trees). I measured a Deodar Cedar at 34 feet, a Red Cedar at 29 feet, Pussy Willow at 26 feet, and three Douglas-firs at 115 ft, 130, and 133 feet. I even used Google Earth to re-establish approximate distances. With tall straight stemmed trees, I find it hard to see how one could be inaccurate by 20% or more, unless measured in uneven terrain or if one is too close to the tree. My experience is that clinometers are very accurate instruments when used correctly. --75.175.81.187 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trees4est and 75.175.76.175, you both are right. And I would replace "Trees grow up to 379 feet." with a combination of your opinions: "The tallest measured tree alive is 379 feet tall, but it's almost certain that there were taller trees in the past." Or something like that. Krasanen (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oldest trees (again)

Krasanen, can you show where you got your information of 3,000 years from that citation? I've never heard of any verified ages close to that.--Trees4est (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The paper is available online. I added a link. See pages 421 (the first page) and 427. Krasanen (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the whole paper! It is a good article about a very interesting forest. Krasanen (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

broken link

{{editsemiprotected}} http://www.globaltrees.org/default.asp should be http://www.globaltrees.org/ thank you

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

In the section it talks about Damage to trees, it says it comes from two main sources. Abiotic and Biotic... What idiot wrote that? A second grader could tell you that. Those categories include EVERYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.240.86 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal add?

add portal link to article ?

---

Look2See1 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if a section should be included on the use of trees in modern society or is there another page that could be linked to? Leithal92 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing record-holding tree lists

I found the lists of record-holding trees to be confusing. Are these lists of individual record-holding trees, or are they lists of species? The lists are phrased as though they are the former, but there is no duplication — if these were lists of individual trees, I would have expected not just one sequoia on the list, but several (for example). Are the lists perhaps a weird hybrid, where, for example, the tallest Coast Redwood is listed, and then the second to fifth tallest trees in the world are also Coast Redwoods, but they aren't listed because a Coast Redwood is already on the list? Could a knowledgeable editor specify at the beginning of each list whether it's a list of individuals or species? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a list of tallest trees. But only one of each species, otherwise it would just be pages and pages of coast redwoods. As their are hundreds of coast redwoods exceeding the Australian Mountain-ash in second place. Hope this clears it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing physiology

I think there should be some discussion on physiology for this to be a good article. What are the special problems that follow from high stature? How are these solved in trees? --Ettrig (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tree/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is certainly quite a readable article and it is well referenced in places. However, it has been submitted by an editor who does not appear to have done any work on it and it contains various {citation needed} and {clarification needed} tags . Those I've looked at, dating back to May 2010, October 2007, May 2010 and September 2009, respectively. There are also significant sections that are under-referenced and paragraphs that are devoid of references.

Whilst the information that is present is good, but not always WP:Verifiable, there are things that I would have expected to see in the article that are not there. I would have expected information on colonisation, whereby various trees migrate into "virgin land" and how the tree species changes over time, "tree line"s on hills and mountains, etc. There is nothing about "farming" of trees - my term - and ancient processes such as coppicing, pollarding, plantations; and nothing about the deliberate selection of trees and their planting, such as tree-lined avenues in towns, avenues of trees in stately home, parks and arboretums.

As this article is not been nominated by a regular contributor to the article, I'm Quick failing it. The article can be resubmitted anytime to WP:GAN, but I would hope that some if not all of these points would be consider and addressed. The article is probably correctly graded as B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tallest Trees - Currently Incorrect Statistic

under the heading of 'record-breaking trees', and 'tallest trees', the Australian mountain-ash is said to have a maximum recorded height of 99.96m (326.8ft). This is incorrect, but i cannot change the statistic due to the page being locked.

an australian mount-ash in tasmania is shown by the page "[[5]]" to be 114.3m (375ft) tall.

the list under "record-breaking trees" should be changed to include this tree in the australian mountain-ash category, as 114.3m (375ft). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.170.75 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't a reliably measured tree. There are lots of stories for many kinds of trees with 100+ meter heights. The Douglass Fir has a taller reliably measured existing specimen however its top 10 meters is a dead branch so it doesn't even count here. 68.25.103.189 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) MW HAS BEEN HERE

Ok, so lumbermen and bush fires have destroyed 90 something percent of the really old growth Australian Mountain Ash over the past 120 years to the point that there might not even be any trees left that are over 285 feet tall in mainland Australia, and we have the audacity to basically disregard all the measurements made in the 19th century (even the ones made by foresters and surveyors) because we can't fathom the sizes they reported? This seems to be more of a sign of our own ignorance than a case of them not having the expertise and know how. Those people lived back in an era when giant trees were very abundant...and besides, even Prof. Steve Sillett at Humboldt State University, California finds the 375 foot Cornthwaite Ash to be a credible measurement --75.175.74.127 (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

moreover, there are multiple trees in British Columbia that could easily make this list, but do not. For example, Carmanah Walbran is home to some of the world's largest spruce trees, some reaching heights in excess of 95 meters - http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/carmanah/. This section needs MAJOR revamping! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markis bellis (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rullah Longatyle is Eucalyptus globulus

Just wanted to point out that a Tasmanian tree named Rullah Longatyle aka Strong Girl aka Grieving Giant is Eucalyptus globulus and not Eucalyptus regnans. See here: http://gianttrees.com.au/pdf/register.pdf, or also http://www.nationalregisterofbigtrees.com.au/tree_register.php or also http://landmarktrees.net/largest%20eucalyptus.html That's why I am correcting it back to Eucalyptus globulus. Daarznieks (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, does that mean Eucalyptus regnans should be added aswell? like the different types of redwood? or are they classed as the same tree? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, largest Eucalyptus regnans is Arve Big Tree, trunk volume is 360.1 sq metres, it certainly qualifies in top ten. Will make corrections myself. Also Eucalyptus obliqua named Gothmog with 337 m3 and Eucalyptus delegatensis with 286 m3 might spot in top ten largest trees. Would love to see those fellows with my eyes :) Daarznieks (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, do you know if anyone is out mearusring (Alerce - Fitzroya cupressoides)? as it is thought they also have large volumes. Do you know if any other tree's out their would make the list? Also does the volume for Lost monarch include branches? as the one for general sherman does not. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I put here as much as I know. Am making own Website on world wonders www.wondermondo.com and currently am working with the trees.

It seems that there is no general convention on how to measure volume - some might include larger branches and several tops and some not.

Volume is rarely measured as it requires lots of measurements in different heights - this in general is done if a) tree is really enormous; b) somebody is specially interested in such things. The tree needs also to be "simple" - like most conifers are - with enormous stem, single top and a bunch of smaller branches near the top. Due to this I would doubt also the results of Arbol del Tule as this tree is extremely stout but not high. 750 m3 looks like exaggeration here.

The reference for that volume is someone saying "I think I heard something like 25k cubic ft", which I could find no other reference for. I know Robert Van Pelt ball-parked it, but the only quote I found from him was the lower 25 feet had more than 12k cubic feet ([6]), which is around 340 cubic meters.--Trees4est (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Alerce we can try and go to spanish-language Wikipedia and try to stir up people there, may be something could be found. Most often such numbers appear in some "nerdy" booklets from 1960ies-1970ies, are forgotten and never appear on Internet. That's my experience with Latvia - here people were obsessed with measuring everything some decades ago and now these figures are semi-forgotten.

If Arbol del Tule is in the top-three (what I doubt), some baobabs could be even larger, also some Ficus.

Daarznieks (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In reference to above statement, (Lost Monarch measurement is stem, not branch Mdvaden (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

Tree Value Estimation

I wonder if this section is worth having at all unless it refers to an external web site that provides reliable and up-to-date values of lumber by type, etc. A couple of reasons spring to mind immediately:

1:The formula provided in this section will not work as an Excel formula without substantial modification.

The modification is not a complex task, though. The formula could be amended to, for example:

=17.27939*(POWER(diameter,2))*POWER(1.022,(YEAR(TODAY()) -1985))

Note that 'diameter' in that formula is a reference to a named cell according to Excel standards.

Also note that I have only corrected the formula so that it will work and provide an answer. I have no idea if the answer is worth knowing. That leads me on to my next concern....

2:Surely the value of a tree is calculated according to several factors.

It's dependent upon the type of wood (mahogany, oak, pine, poplar, etc), as well as seasonal demand, the many things that affect availability, and so on. None of these variables have been considered.

The inclusion of a notional calculation for inflation is no real help, because the rate of inflation is highly variable.

Comments, anyone? Twistlethrop (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is little value in the chart, like you say it lacks context both in place and time. How a trees value maybe determined may have value though. Hardyplants (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This section absolutely needs to be removed. If someone wants to create a tree valuation page and link to it, that's another matter. This page is really in need of attention; parts are very good, but there's a lot of junk right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees4est (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"(disambiguation)" typo

There is a typo in the word: For other uses, see Tree (disambiguation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candy853 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked for something to fix, but don't see it. The hatnote links directly to Tree (disambiguation). Maybe you mean something else? —EncMstr (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

99% figure not right

Hello, it's not in fact true that 99% of the mass of the tree comes from the air... Jonathan Drori was exaggerating. For example, one of the main structural components is cellulose, of which the basic unit is C6H10O5. The C and O come from carbon dioxide; the H comes from water _from the ground_. If you add up atomic masses, it's about 6*12 for carbon, 10*1 for hydrogen, and 5*16 for oxygen, for a total of 162, out of which 10 is hydrogen. So 94% of the cellulose mass comes from the air. That's already about 3% of the total mass of the tree not coming from the air... probably another 3% or so from the other major constituents of wood. Kier07 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tallest Trees -- suggestions

The article currently reads:

"...Historical claims of trees growing to 130 m (427 ft), and even 150 m (492 ft), are now largely disregarded as unreliable, and attributed to human error. Historical records of fallen trees measured prostrate on the ground are considered to be somewhat more reliable. The following are now accepted as the top ten tallest reliably measured species.."

I would argue this is very sad and pitiable, and at best ignorant. When only about 6% of the really Old growth Redwoods exist, and possibly only 10 percent of the real old growth Douglas fir exist in the Northwest, and in southern Australia only a tiny percent of the old growth Eucalyptus Regnans remain, how could a trained scientist legitimately conclude that these "top ten tallest reliably measured species" (all measured in the past few years) truly represent the maximum height they have achieved in the past before the vast majority of them, arguably 85 to 95 % of them were logged, burned, or cleared from the land in the last 140 years?

To illustrate my point:

After the massive bush fires in 2009 destroyed the tallest trees in the state of Victoria, Australia not a single Eucalyptus in the mainland is known to even reach 300 feet, a height which was fairly common in the past.

Yet in the late 19th century Eucalyptus Regnans growing in the south mainland of Australia were reported at heights of up to 375 feet (surveyor Cornthwaite 1880-1881) and even 435 feet (Forester/Surveyor Ferguson 1872) both specimens measured prostrate.

Therefore I would suggest that statements like, "Historical claims of trees growing to 130 m (427 ft), and even 150 m (492 ft), are now largely disregarded as unreliable" need to be more specific. Why are they unreliable? Are lumbermen that bad at measuring felled trees or cutting them into precise sections to be milled? Are they directly questioning the surveying skills or credibility of past State Foresters, and certified land surveyors such as William Ferguson or George Cornthwaite; some of these same men who may have been commissioned to survey the very streets many Australians now traverse?

My suggestion is that the article say something like, "the following are now accepted as the top ten tallest reliably measured specimens alive today, although specimens much taller have been documented for some species in the past..." or along those lines.

You can't take a forests biggest trees, and then 100 years later claim it's scrawniest leftovers as the true champions. It's like shooting all men taller than you and claiming yourself the victor, well sort of a stupid analogy but you get the point. --75.175.81.16 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tree value estimation

Trees do not produce heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.80.121 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact they do: having been caught in a tree well many times. The tree well article neglects to mention the main cause of these, particularly in Oregon. —EncMstr (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be well sourced. Mixaphone (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Trees not included on list.

There are some obvious omissions in this article. For example, the New Zealand Kauri's: Tane Mahuta - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tane_Mahuta Te Matua Ngahere - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Matua_Ngahere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.6.179 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Contents is written in cyrillic and an to me unknown language.193.141.155.146 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How Many?

In 2005 an estimate based on NASA satellite data suggested a global total of about 400 trees, which equates to about 61 trees per person on the contonent. Note this is approximate and is based on assumptions of tree density etc

- If NASA estimates there are only 400 trees on the earth, then I hope they lose their funding real soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.82.140 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see here...6+ billion people...so, just off the top of my calcuhead, maybe 400 billion trees is what the unidentified poster meant by that estimate. Let's keep NASA looking. I wonder what the estimates look like today? duff 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Add automatic taxonomy box?

I would like to suggest adding a template automatic taxobox to help show the classification of trees within the world of plants. Nutster (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Mixaphone (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"99% of biomass comes from air"

As I pointed out before, the 99% figure from the TED video is an exaggeration. When Jonathan Drori said, in passing, that 99% comes from the air, he was making the (valid) point that the notion that most of the tree comes from the ground is a common misconception. Instead of just quoting him on that directly, we should check the number; we will find that about 6% of the mass of the cellulose in the tree comes from water from the ground, and assuming cellulose is roughly half of the mass of the tree we already see the 99% number can't be quite right.

I changed it to say more than 90%, since I don't know what it is exactly (and it probably depends on the tree). I also moved it to a more appropriate section, since misconceptions about where trees get their biomass is a pretty unusual construal of "culture." Kier07 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tree: issues for checking and removal

Morphology

Trees with leaves range may be Deciduous or Evergreen. By analyzing the leaf arrangement and shape, a tree can be identified.

Badly worded paragraph, cleanup needed, inc. decap deciduous and evergreen, and use 'analysing' not 'analyzing' to match rest of page.

Tallest Trees

4. Philippine rosewood (Petersianthus quadrialatus): 96.9 m (318 ft), Agusan del Sur, Mindanao, Philippines

Blog entry, not a reliable reference. Delete until any verified scientific measurement data can be found.

Stoutest trees

1. African Baobab Adansonia digitata: 15.9 m (52 ft), Glencoe Baobab (measured near the ground), Limpopo Province, South Africa. This tree split up in November 2009 and now the stoutest baobab could be Sunland Baobab (South Africa) with idealised diameter 10.64 m and correct circumference - 33.4 m.

The Glencoe measurement is ground level, and therefore not comparable with the other entries, and should be removed. Photos of it show it is actually two trunks fused at the very base; established practice in such cases is to measure the two trunks separately above the fork. Verification should be sought that the unreferenced Sunland tree measurement is a dbh, and not ground level; delete it until obtained.

Smallest tree

(whole section)

Unreferenced, and a nonsense entry: if it is smaller than the definition at the top of the page, it isn't a tree (the example species cited is only called a shrub on its wiki page). Delete.

Oldest trees

The oldest reported age for an angiosperm tree is 2293 years for the Sri Maha Bodhi Sacred Fig (Ficus religiosa) planted in 288 BC at Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. This is also the oldest human-planted tree with a known planting date.

No evidence for scientific verification of the age. Delete, or at least state it is only oral tradition, not a verified measured age.

Damage

(whole section)

Uses -ized spellings while rest of page uses -ised spellings; change to match rest of page.

International standards are uniform in analyzing damage potential and sizing TPZs (tree protection zones) to minimize damage. For mature to fully mature trees, the accepted TPZ comprises a 1.5-foot (0.46 m) set-off for every 1-inch (25 mm) diameter of trunk. That means for a 10-inch (250 mm) tree, the TPZ would extend 15 feet (4.6 m) in all directions from the base of the trunk at ground level.

For young or small trees with minimal crowns (and trunks less than 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter) a TPZ equal to 1-foot (0.30 m) for every inch of trunk diameter may suffice. That means for a 3-inch (76 mm) tree, the TPZ would extend 3 feet (0.91 m) in all directions from the base of the trunk at ground level. Detailed information on TPZs and related topics is available at minimal cost from organizations like the International Society for Arboriculture.

Unreferenced, and by logic untrue, as international standards use international measures, i.e., metric, not US. Certainly, the UK standard (British Standard 5837 Trees in relation to construction) uses only metric. Delete, and replace with referenced international standards.

Tree value estimation

(whole section)

Only relevant to USA. Delete, or locate comparable examples from other regions to give balance.

217.206.228.6 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Image 4 found wanting

'Trees after an overnight snowfall, in early morning light.' does nothing for the article - can someone find a more useful image which actually assists in understanding some aspect of the article? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoutest/Largest Trees addition

Stoutest tree:

A Kauri tree (Te Matua Ngahere) has a dbh of 5.33 m. Measurements at [7]. It should be included on the list.

I have also been looking for data to support the unreferenced Alerce entry, but the largest measurement I can find has a diameter of ~2.2 m in Argentina, e.g. [8].

Largest Tree:

Tāne_Mahuta, another Kauri, has a wood volume of 516 m^3, as measured by Dr Robert van Pelt (who considers it to be the 3rd biggest conifer after Sequoiadendron and Sequioa (see [9]). Should this be included in the largest tree list? Trunk volume was measured at 255 m^3, wood volume in the substantial branches an additional 261 m^3.

Foomanz (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous three section requests done. Keteleeria (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Morphology/physiology

The section "morphology" includes some aspects that belong to "physiology". I think that a new section should be opened, devoted to physiology, to segregate the pertinent material, and maybe expand it.--Auró (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Mono-phyletic?

I'm guessing, though I don't have a reference, that 'trees' are not a mono-phyletic group. (Based mainly on the fact, mentioned in Richard Dawkin's, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', that many 'trees' on Saint Helena are in fact hyper-trophied daisies.) Does anyone have a citation that explicitly states this? If so, it would be good to add it.86.134.117.67 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That is actually said in the section Classification, even twice: "A tree is a plant form that occurs in many different orders and families of plants." and "The tree form has evolved separately in unrelated classes of plants, in response to similar environmental challenges, making it a classic example of parallel evolution."Krasanen (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it would be good to add something on the evolution of 'trees', as well. 86.134.117.67 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tree Age, Dual Stems & Volume

The Methuselah Tree would be 4843 this year according to the Wikipedia article on the subject which I believe to be accurate. The Prometheus Tree, also a Bristlecone, cut down in the mid-60's was 4844 at the time of cutting. Donald Greybill later analyzed the materials and found 4,862 to be a more likely number...both Scientists at the time and most since that time agree that Methuselah was 4,900 - 5,100 years old at the time it was cut based on growth patterns and the height at which the tree was cut and based on known growth rates in the harsh environment. SO its not clear to me if the original post is confusing the two trees, it is equally unclear that if the article is referring to Prometheus, why the age would not be above 4,900 years? Ref: NYT article 9/9/11. I have also read unconfirmed reports of a tree 5,000+ years old in the Schulman Grove.

The age of the Giant Sequoia at 3,266 refers to tree ring counts for a tree that was cut down in the Converse Basin approximately 120 years ago. The Muir Snag is estimated to have been 3,500 years old at the time of it's death which predates John Muir's discovery of the Tree in the mid 1870's. The Cleavland Tree which is actually the only Sequoia Tree I know of that is still alive with a possibility of being 3,266 years old is at the outside edge of the confidence interval as described by Dr. Nate Stephenson. Though he states there are probably 1,000 sequoia's that have not been cored for age that are much larger in diameter (and therefore have the possibility of being older) than the stump referred to in this article at 3,266.

Dr. Stephenson says the following about CBR26 - The Oldest sequoia mentioned in this article. "As a yardstick for interpreting results, I used the age and size of the longest-lived sequoia known -- a cut stump in Converse Basin, Giant Sequoia National Monument, designated CBR26 by its discoverers (R. Touchan and E. Wright of the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research). Touchan has precisely crossdated 3207 rings on the stump. It is missing much of its sapwood, so the outermost ring dates to 1834. However, the extensive logging of Converse Basin Grove occurred between 1893 and 1908. Thus, at least 59 years of sapwood are missing, and the tree therefore was at least 3266 years old when it was cut. (It is unlikely that the tree exceeded 3290 years old, including the time it took the tree to grow to the height sampled by Touchan and Wright.) The stump is relatively small: 5.8 m in diameter near ground level and 4.3 m in diameter at the cut surface 2.2 m above ground level. Even with sapwood and bark intact, the tree's diameter at 2.2 m above ground level was probably less than 5 m when it was cut, much smaller than any of the trees analyzed here (Table 3). While we will never know the volume of the living CBR26, it is clear that many hundreds of sequoias alive today (probably well over one thousand) are larger than CBR26 was before it was cut." Accordingly the trees age is somewhere between 3266 - 3290 at the time it was cut. and that was somewhere between 120 and 103 years ago. Date unknown.

So if the discussion of age refers to dead trees, we should be talking about Prometheus and the Muir Snag (or if the Muir Snag estimates are unreliable then the stump in Converse Basin.) Of course, then the issue becomes, whether to include the 47+ yrs or 120+ yrs from the date of the tree's destruction to the age of the trees? If it refers to trees still living then Methuselah and the Cleavland Tree would be the best candidates but the ages are wrong. Under any scenario the information currently posted is incorrect at worst and incomplete at best and should be revised.

Additionally there are volume and diameter data included in the article for the "Lost Monarch" which is a multi-stemmed tree. Whereas the Giant Sequoia data is all for single stemmed trees (Note: there are 1,000's of 2,3,& 4 stemmed Giant Sequoias.) This is an important distinction that should be stated clearly so that readers know which trees are a single organism and which ones are multi-stemmed.

Behold the following comment by Dr. Robert Van Pelt author of Forest Giants of Pacific Coast on the site nativetreesociety dot org

"For single stemmed trees the Sequoias have no peer. These are the trees I know of over 10 K cubic feet

Sequoiadendron 55,040 Sequoia 36,890 Agathis 18,250 Thuja 17,650 Eucalyptus 13,300 Pseudotsuga 12,320 Picea 11,920 Taxodium ~10K Adansonia ~10K

I do not think any others would make this list.

In terms of living biomass, remember that a tree like the General Sherman is 99 percent dead. Only the cambium, a very small amount of phloem and xylem, the leaves and fine roots are actually alive.

The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone. Other, less well studied clones could be just as extensive (and ancient). Where I live there is evidence that certain clones of Acer circinatum or Rhododendron macrophyllum are 4-6,000 years old. These clones could now consist of enough stems to warrent inclusion in this list.

In terms of actual living mass, the mycelium of the Armelaria gallica that covers 15 hectares in Upper Michigan will probably beat any of the 'tree' contenders.

How unromantic."

This post addresses the volume & multi-stem issue addressed above.

For example the largest single stem of the Lost Monarch is approximately 34, 914 cu/ft according to Dr. Van Pelt.

Additionally it points out that the General Sherman is 55,040 cu.ft as opposed to the figure reported in the article. The figures in the article for the General Sherman come from Flint and Law's 2002 "To Find the Biggest Tree" in which they used pin and transit measurements. Dr. Van Pelt's measurements subsequent thereto used a Criterion RD-1000 Laser. Because the laser can get diameter measurements at infinitely more heights and from infinitely more angles, its volume data should be considered more accurate. Hence I would suggest use of the 55,040 volume.

AfterSeven (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Armourial Trees not related to harvard.

May I suggest the harvard shield is replaced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Lebanon , since a nations flag would seem more important, particularly where it shows the national tree!93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the re-write

I’ve reverted the recent re-write of the article. The existing article was already a GA nominee and certainly did not require a total re-write that removed large amounts of information, references etc.

More importantly, the re-write is very poor quality. It is full of errors, misleading comments and stylistic issues. I started out trying to fix these, but one I started I realised that there are just to many to make it worth saving. To give some idea what I mean, I will post my (expanded) notes that I took while attempting to fix the first three paragraphs of the article.

“Compared with most other plants, trees are long-lived”

Is this actually true? There are many trees that are relatively ephemeral with lifespans of less than two decades. In contrast even most perennial herbaceous plants have lifespans of centuries, and perennial woody shrubs, vines etc live for milennia.

“Trees are found growing almost everywhere from the Arctic to the equator.”

This seems obviously not true. There are tens of millions of hectares of farmland and desert, for example, without any trees.

“An area of cleared and untended land will eventually end up covered in trees.”

That doesn't seem at all credible. The Great Plains, for example, were cleared and untended and never ended up covered with tree. Nor does the Sahara desert.

“These would be broad-leaved trees in tropical and temperate climates and evergreen coniferous species in colder regions.”

This is once again simply not true. There are extensive broad-leaved forests in colder regions and extensive coniferous forests in tropical regions.

“Trees are an important component of the natural landscape and appeal to our aesthetic values.”

Do they? Whose aesthetic values do they appeal to precisely, and how was this determined? This seems like POV at worst, and at best an example of poor writing.

“Tropical rainforests are among the most biodiverse habitats.”

No mention has been made of what a forest is or how it relates to this article which is about trees. As it stands this is a non-sequitur and poor style.

“They store up large quantities of carbon dioxide in their tissues.”

No, they do not. Trees store carbon in their tissues primarily in the form of carbohydrate. The human body stores more carbon dioxide than the largest tree.

“In parts of the world, forests are shrinking as trees are cleared to increase the amount of land available for agriculture.”

And in other parts forests are growing as agricultural land is either planted to forest or abandoned. At this point in time forest cover is increasing globally, not decreasing. And once again, no attempt has been made to tie the subject of this article to the topic of forests.

“A tree … differs from a shrub in that it is larger and has a main stem which has no branches on its lowest part.”

This is just flat out wrong. A great many tress such as the figs or mallees branch at or near ground level. Indeed, the reason for high branching in most trees in exposed areas is the result of fire or browsing. And a great many shrubs are larger than a great many trees.

“There are two principal groups of trees, the gymnosperms and the angiosperms.”

No, those are the principle groups of vascular plants, not trees. There are many ways of grouping trees, such as deciduous/evergreen, mesophyll, notophyll etc.

“The gymnosperms… are characterised by having naked seeds that is not contained in ovaries. The angiosperms include all other flowering plants.”

No, angiosperms certainly do not include all other flowering plants. Angiosperms are the only flowering plants. Gymnosperms are not flowering plants at all, they are certainly not another group of flowering pants separate from the angiosperms.

“…one important group, the palms, is monocotyledonous”

According to the introduction, a tree s a woody plant, and according to the reference that was deleted, palms are not woody plants and are not trees.

“In palms, the terminal bud on the main stem is the only one to develop so they have tall, unbranched trunks.”

Many palms have multiple stems and multiple buds. Look at the article on cane palms.

“Some of the tree ferns…”

Tree ferns are also not woody. We were also just told that tree are eihter gymnosperms or angiosperms, and tree ferns are neither.

“Trees are either evergreen, keeping their leaves all year long..[/quote]

Evergreen trees has some leaves in all seasons. In many evergreen plants, each individual leaf only last a few months, they are not kept all year long

“The crown is a name for the uppermost branches and foliage of a tree”

The crown refers to all the parts of the tree above the soil line, including the trunk, fruit, flowers and lower branches.

“A young tree is called a sapling.”

No, a young tree is called a seedling, cutting, juvenile, pole etc. IOW there is no single terms for a young tree. A sapling is a specific type of juvenile tree, intermediate between a seedling and a pole in forestry jargon but with many other meanings.

And this is just from the first three paragraphs. The entire article is at least as flawed. Literally two out of every three sentences has a serious problem. Much of it is plainly factually wrong, such as claims that gymnosperms are a group of flowering plants, or claiming that the crown of a tree is only the upper branches. These errors are easily confirmed simply by reading the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Others are at bets controversial and presented without explanation or references, such as claims that trees will cover all the land area of the Earth, even the deserts, if left untended by humans. Some of it is merely confusing and contradictory and in dire need of consistency, such as mentions of tree ferns and palms after declaring that trees are woody plants. And most of it is stylistically crude: introducing concepts with no lead, drawing unwarranted or unexplained conclusions and so forth.

In short, the new re-write has so many issues that it really isn’t worth the effort it would take to salvage. This is particularly true given the high quality of the article that it replaces.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Take it up with the editor who is responsible for the new and improved version. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems the appropriate venue to take it up.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert to a pre-war version

I was about to full protect the page, and reverted to the pre-edit warring state, but I now see one editor was already blocked so not sure it is needed now. WP:BRD applies to everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• It was reverted again. I already pushed 3R yesterday so I'm not going to again, but I am very disappointed. See further comments below. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the protection Dennis. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My new version

I will not deal with the points Mark Marathon makes one by one because most of them are not worth pursuing. A couple I will respond to though:

• We all know what a tree is but it is difficult to define. My definition was based on the article on "Tree" in my Encyclopedia Britannica.
• If I use the word "most" or "usually" this is because there may be some exceptions to a statement.
• "A young tree is called a sapling." This statement appears in the exact same words in the present version as well as my new one.
• The wikipedia article Crown (botany) explains that "The crown of a woody plant (tree, shrub, liana) is the branches, leaves, and reproductive structures extending from the trunk or main stems."

The structure of the existing article is:

1. Classification
2. Morphology
3. Record breaking trees
4. Damage
5. Trees in culture
6. Tree value approximation (USA)
7. See also
8. References
9. External links

The "Classification" and "Morphology" sections are OK as far as they go but they are much expanded in my version.

Between them, Record breaking trees and Damage make up about 50% of the whole article. I don't think either has a place in a general article on trees. However, I created two new pages to which I moved this content when I created my new version. So leaving them in place in the article "Tree" duplicates the content on their new pages.

The section "Trees in culture" is pretty inadequate.

The section "Tree value approximation (USA)" gives a figure for 1985, applies only to the USA and is not suitable for inclusion in a general purpose article.

I propose to reinstate my version. It was worked on in my userspace for several weeks and I believe is well referenced from reliable sources. It may be imperfect but I think it is a better starting point than the present version. Some views from other editors would be helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• The above editor pointed out positive commentary on their reworked version here, Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries. I trust work can continue on that version without further disruption. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I was wrong: it has been reverted again by User:Curtis Clark with little explanation. Curtis, above you said that this (the talk page) is the right place to take it up. It would behoove you to actually take it up, not to simply revert again and continue warring. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Revert again? This was the first time I have touched the article (except possibly for vandalism reversion) in years if ever. WRT taking it up, the combination of the ordinary sleep period in my time zone and other IRL activities kept me away from it until now. I guess making a change and then disappearing for a few hours is only acceptable in AN/I. My concern was that the "wrong version" was being preserved. But I've decided I don't give a fuck. I'll wait a month or two, and if any inaccuracies remain, I'll correct them. I obviously don't have what it takes to keep up with the fast-moving world of Wikipedia edit wars.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I'd like to add that it seems to me Mark Marathon was following BRD in reverting all of Cwmhiraeth's edits. The next step should have been to discuss, rather than revert back, as Drmies did. So it's probably not a good idea to be slinging around "edit war".--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's clear, I think, what "again" meant: another revert, not another revert by you per se. BRD is fine, but this was much more than Boldness. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• I like the structure of the new version. It's a lot more how an encyclopaedia article on this should be arranged, and not simply a list of exceptional trees followed by a bud of an "in popular culture" section. That said, I think that the preceding talk page section contains several points on the wording that should be addressed. And you'd do well, Cwmhiraeth, not to ignore them. Part of the problem here is that it seems that you've added links to sources without indicating which parts are not covered by the sources. A liberal use of {{cn-span}} on what you've written is necessary, to indicate which bits you didn't source and improve. This is a classic error, that happens all of the time when people insert content that is linked to sources within or after content that is not.

  For example: The sentence "A young tree is called a sapling." is apparently, according to the version as you've written it, now verifiable via a glossary of tree terminology. But it isn't. Consulting that very glossary I see a noticeably different definition of what a sapling is.

  For another example: The old version made a clear statement that "no precise differentiation between shrubs and trees is possible". Your version now says that a tree "differs from a shrub", and claims that that's supported by a John A. Keslick. But your citation points to an entire "dictionary", giving no clue as to what part of the dictionary supports this claim. Checking the entry for "tree" in that dictionary reveals that your content is not supported by it, since Keslick says nothing about lower branches. Again, Mark Marathon actually raises a valid editorial point that needs addressing.

  Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree about issues with lack of clarity between a tree and a shrub - I think there is ample scope for going forward, and maybe discussing each section (with both corresponding versions and combining best of each) below individually is a start to steer this back into a collaborative effort. Both editors want the article to be improved, so let's make a start now. I'll ask some editors with botanical knowledge to have a look as well so we can get an informed consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. I will work on the points raised above (when I can edit the article again in a week's time) and agree that some of the matters raised by Mark Marathon are valid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that there is still nothing on crown architecture, lumber, or forests. Maybe that's all yet to come, but I recommend looking at the contents in the "Tree" article of several different encyclopedias to see what major topics usually are included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"I will not deal with the points Mark Marathon makes one by one because most of them are not worth pursuing." Seriously? This is what you consider to be a bona fide attempt at reaching consensus? I point out clear issues with the article as it stands and your only response is "it's not worth responding to? At this stage I will simply re-iterate what has said. Your comments are at odds with the actual science. I some cases merely unclear, unreferenced or highly dubious such as the claims that palms and tree ferns are trees, or that trees will cover the deserts and Great Plains if left untended. In other cases the claims are provably wrong, such as the claim that palms only have one active bud on a single main stem, or that that trees store large amounts of carbon dioxide or claims that lateral branches and not part of the crown. These are statements that are very easily verified. The references that you have given for these claims are at best weak, and in many cases the references do not agree with the claim they are supposed to support. The fact that you removed a highly reputable references to universities, journals and textbooks and replaced them with generic references to online sources does not help the issue at all.

At this stage I stand by my initial evaluation: the re-write is so stylistically poor and so error ridden that it is not worth preserving. I agree, the general outline of the article is a great improvement over the old, and kudos on that. But beyond the outline it isn't just a case of working on the points raised. That is what I initially attempted to do, and I gave up when I realised how rife the article was with errors. The points I raised are in no wise the only errors in the article, simply the ones I found before I gave up, after just three paragraphs.

I have neither the time nor the energy to enumerate errors when those errors comprise 2/3 of the article content. Nor do I believe the errors should be allowed to remain because an editor wants to rewrite an entire article without sufficient knowledge to detect the errors. Claiming, for example, that "The crown ... is the branches, leaves, and reproductive structures extending from the trunk or main stems" is equivalent to "The crown is a name for the uppermost branches and foliage of a tree”" highlights the issue with undertaking a major re-write of an article in which you lack expertise. Reproductive structures are neither foliage nor branches, so that makes your version provably incorrect since it states explicitly that the crown is only the foliage and branches. Branches on a tree 40m tall can extend from a main stem 5 m above the ground and never reach a height of more than [5m], and they still qualify as part of the canopy. Yet your version states that most the branches on the trees in those photographs are not part of the canopy because they are not "the uppermost branches". Once again, this is simply an example. Anyone with basic knowledge of dendrology, or indeed tree growth forms, will spot that your definition is in no way equivalent to the definiton in the Crown (botany) article . Yet you still believe that they are equivalent even after this is pointed out, and you and will actually argue the point. As I said, I have neither the time nor the energy to fix and argue over so many errors with someone with who will not even deign to address the issues when I do raise them because he considers them not worth addressing.

The use of "most" or "usually" in technical writing does not give you a free pass to make generalistaions. Those terms mean that >50% of the time, the statement is true. "Most" and "usually" are not weasel words like "often" and "frequently", and even if they were, we should not be using weasel words in Wikipedia articles. I do not believe the statements that I have critiqued are true >50% of the time, and the references you supplied do not support your assertion that they are true >50% of the time. I do not believe that trees are long lived compared to 51% of other plants. As I noted, many trees have a lifespan of just a few years. Many more have a lifespan of just a couple of decades. In contrast most vegetatively reproducing plants such as daffodils or grasses have an indeterminate lifespan, certainly century scale. So it seems at best arguable that trees are long lived compared to most other plants, and with nothing to verify such a claim, it must be removed. That you believe that simply using "mostly" gives you carte blanch to make generalisations without verifiablity highlights once again why I have little inclination to correct the extremely numerous errors in the article.

Leaving aside the outline, the actual content of the old version is simply a lot more accurate, clear and stylistically sound than the current re-write. I favour substance over style. The last article may have been crappier in terms of outline and layout, but it was far superior in terms of content. We are therefore better off editing the old version into the new outline than attempting to make a silk purse out of the content of the current version. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the points you raise are valid. The article is far from perfect and needs knowledgeable people like you to improve it. In the lead I made an error in referring to carbon dioxide when I should have said carbon. (I take it you agree that trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it in their tissues?) As we are unable to edit the article at the moment, I am making changes of this sort in my userspace where I still have a copy of the article and will move them into place at the end of the week. Perhaps you would like to look at the article again after that and make or suggest further improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, allow me to apologise for being snippy. I took offence at your initial position that my comments were not worthy of addressing. I now see that you later said that you would address them. My bad. Secondly, it's gonna take a hell of a lot of work to make this latest version workable. It may not have been tactful of me to say it, but in all honesty it is a bit of a sow's ear. There are so many issues that I doubt I will have time to address them all, but if you are willing to rewrite the article, making an effort to ensure that all the material is verifiable and addressing the points i have raised, I will certainly give what help I can. But until all the issues are resolved, there is little point in moving any new material back here, since it will be reverted. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Appology accepted. I have withdrawn the GA nomination because realistically, I guess the article would fail on criterion 5 if nothing else. Why don't we try to work together to get it up to good article standard? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the points I raised both here and on Cwmhiraeth's user page have still not been addressed. So I will revert until such time as the points I raised above are fixed.

Moreover we are now seeing credible botanical references replaced with generic dictionary definitions, presumably because the more credible sources disagreed with the editor. Most notably the reference the editor originally used, from a State forestry service, essentially stated that a sapling was a tree intermediate between a seedling and a pole: the standard botanical definition. Now we have a dictionary definition that says that a sapling is a young tree. Aside from being a less credible source, it still doesn't support the contention made in the article. While a sapling is a type of young tree, it is not correct to claim that a young tree is a sapling. As noted above, young trees are also called seedlings, poles, cuttings, juveniles, submatures and so forth. We need to appreciate the difference between "All crows are black birds" and "All black birds are crows". Just because your dictionary defines a crow as a large glossy black bird , that does not allow you to claim on Wikipedia that large glossy black birds are called crows. See the difference?

Once again, I really don't have the time to spend arguing these points endlessly. The editor has admitted he lacks expertise in this field, yet he insists upon arguing uncontroversial points such as this, to the extent of ignoring his own references when they disagree with him and seeking out ones that he believes do agree. This is tiring, and it's going to mean it will take a long, long time to reach consensus because every uncontroversial point will need to be beaten to death with elaborate explanations. Can we please try for good faith here. If I've challenged a point it is because i genuinely believe, in my expert opinion that it is incorrect or misleading. When that is confirmed by your own references, can we please just accept it, rather than going and actively seeking other references that you believe agree with your original wording that probably do not?

There is absolutely no point in moving any new material back here until all these issues are addressed, since it will be reverted. It would also be nice to see some work done on the rest of the article, which has just as many flaws, so we dont; have to once gain revert to start work on the next section. With the amount of time I have and the refusal to accept criticisms, that could take months.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)