Talk:Tree/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New section

There are many general articles here that contain sections pertaining to one country. They should not be removed simply because of that, especially if showing an approach usable in other countries. Note the built-in correction for inflation. Here it is for reconsideration. -72.37.249.60 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection 1 week

I thought my revert and comment would be sufficient, but I supposed not as there seems to be more dogs in this hunt than I thought. Being the type article it is, I would err on the conservative side and I have fully protected for 1 week, reverting back to the prior status, which is probably the Wrong Version, so it isn't an endorsement of any version, just a previously used marker in the road. I do see a split just took place, which is likely part of the issue, but surely you can work this out. If you reach consensus early, ping me to unprotect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• On an unrelated note, I was disappointed that this article had not achieved GA status. Surely a topic as broad and important as this deserves the investment of time and energy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well yes it'd be nice if it would too, but let's get it right first :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting. I think the record-breaking tree section should be split off when protection is lifted. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean. The Record-breaking trees section was split off on 1st August when I created the article in this form. All that remains here is a brief summary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was looking at the earlier version. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

I find it very disappointing that the article has been reverted back to its original state without consensus on this page as to which version to retain.

Casliber made a suggestion on August 3rd (which seems to have got edited out of the talk page above) - "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 in 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." Why don't we proceed in this way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, let's do that. And until we have consensus on how to combine the articles, lets stick with a version where 2/3 of the content is not incorrect or misleading. I'm all for discussing and combining the articles, but we shouldn't allow a version to stand while it is misleading and inaccurate, should we? People will be reading the article in the meantime and being misled. At the very least we need to remove provable factual errancies before an edit can be accepted. Wouldn't you agree?Mark Marathon (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC).Mark Marathon (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark, why would you "start" by gutting large portions of the article? How did you take what Cwmhiraeth said to be a mandate to rip out 60k worth of article? I protected the article because of actions like that. You don't start building consensus by first reverting the article to your preferred version. What you are doing here looks dangerously like continuing an edit war Mark, and I'm not prone to protect again, but instead start blocking people. I strongly suggest reverting yourself now and instead working on one section at a time, so I'm not forced to think you are being disruptive and edit warring. I've left a note on your talk page as well Mark, since I would prefer you to just self-correct, rather than forcing me to block you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I am merely following WP:BRD. Cwmhiraeth has made his changes. I have reverted those changes. Now we are discussing the changes he would like to make in order to reach a compromise. According to BRD, Cwmhiraeth should now avoid reverting my revert. Instead he should go to the talk page to learn why he was reverted. I have no idea how you see this as continuing an edit war when I am scrupulously following Wikipedia methodology. I will put the same questions to you Dennis. Do you believe we should allow Cwmhiraeth's version to stand while it is provably misleading and inaccurate? Would you agree that, at the very least, we need to remove provable factual errancies and unverifiable material before the edit can be accepted? Or is verifiability no longer Wikipedia policy? Mark Marathon (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, fuck it. I have had enough of this bullshit and threats from Admins. The article is absolute drek written by somebody who admits he has not the least expertise in the field. It is full of unverified and unverifiable bullshit and heinously misleading material in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. But if all the reward an expert gets for trying to correct these blatant errors is this sort of shit, the article can stay as it is. And long may it stand as a testament to the way the Wikipedia Old Boys club works. I dearly hope that it gets Good Article status in its current form. Wikipedia deserves it. Good Luck.Mark Marathon (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BRD isn't an excuse to continue an edit war that has already forced the page to be fully protected. The whole purpose of protection is to stop reverts and force discussion. As for which version should "stand", I obviously don't have an opinion else I couldn't act in an administrative role here. I don't care what version you all agree on, only that you agree on it instead of warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am asking someone from WikiProject Plants to look at the article and provide guidance on the information in it and how it can be improved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Clark is a botanist and a member of WikiProject Plants, and he expressed a concern that the re-written version by Cwmhiraeth was the "wrong" version to preserve, a view with which, on initial inspection, I am inclined to concur. Not only that but on the point of Wiki-etiquette the version preferred by Mark Marathon should be the starting point, as this was the version that existed prior to all the recent changes and warring. Curtis Clark also made that point. Although Mark Marathon did subsequently edit war, he was in fact only employing WP:BRD initially when he removed the rewritten version, but unfortunately he didn't leave an edit summary when he did this, so his removal was unexplained and so Drmies reverted and then it all escalated. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To me, the sequence of the BRD started out correctly. Cwmhiraeth was bold, Mark Marathon reverted, and then Mark Marathon initiated a discussion. The first time it went awry was when Drmies restored the article. Evidently, though, an accusation of edit warring trumps an attempt to follow actual recommended procedure. It's clear from all this that there will be a whole lot of unnecessary dramaz prior to any useful work being done on the article, and I have little enough time for useful work and no time for dramaz.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Compromise: how about moving Cwmhiraeth's version to a subpage here first while both parties work out the kinks? You both agree that the article still needs work. And though I'm also far from being anything approaching a botanist, the points Mark raised are quite valid and serious. Being live or not, doesn't really matter that much overall while it's still being worked on. Nothing's getting lost here, just tempers it seems. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring, and Mark Marathon has reverted twice now since the protection was over. There are plenty of opportunities to make productive edits in either version, but Marathon shows no inclination of doing that. For example, I've pointed at the overblown EL section before, which he keeps reinstating as well. He could show some good faith by actually contributing as an editor instead of simply being a reverter. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of us mere botanists, could someone line up the two versions in clearly separate places so that we can look them over without getting confused by edit wars? Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As the originator of this version of the article I would like to retain it in preference to the original version of Tree which existed before. Of course I am biased because I spent two and a half weeks researching and writing the new version in my userspace and don't like to think it was wasted effort. Mark Marathon did not approve of my new version and pointed out a number of things he disliked. I have rewritten the lead section and the section "Types and terminology" to try and accommodate his views but there was no pleasing him. If there are errors in the main body of the article, any editor can correct them or point out where I have gone wrong but nobody has done so yet.

Now lets look at the alternative which you can see here. The lead section does not summarise what is in the rest of the article, but tries to establish how big a woody plant must be to be described as a tree. It also contains the sentence "Compared with most other plants, trees are long-lived, some reaching several thousand years old ...", a fact that Mark has been disputing earlier on this page because I included it in my version. He similarly objected at great length to the sentence "A young tree is called a sapling." which I copied into my new version from the old one. The "Classification" and "Morphology" sections are unobjectionable but leave out a lot of information that I have included in my version. The "Damage" section would need to be removed because it duplicates the article Tree health which I separated out when I replaced the old version with the new. Mark knew about that article because he disfigured it with and tags but he does not seem to care when the same information forms part of the old version of Tree that he would have us return to. Then we have an almost non-existent "Trees in culture" followed by "Tree value approximation (USA)" which I don't like because it lacks context, gives 1985 figures and refers only to the USA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Working on the rewrite

I saw this discussion at Wikiproject Plants. I opened the rewrite to see what the problem is, and I think working on a version with so many problems would be counterproductive. It is hard to be less established as an editor on Wikipedia, see a problem, and try to fix it, then get met with battles. I have tried and failed in the past and had to simply let errors exist. I also think that editors without knowledge of an area do good work identify long-standing problems, but sometimes they do need more expert help than they realize. Could we move forward rewriting the article without the rewrite? I am willing to help. I have background in botany and forestry. I also would like to see an extant gymnosperm or non-monocot as the lead picture. Eau (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Eau. Expert editors will take more time to correct this article than to create a new one. I also endorse rewriting without using the rewrite.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and clearly there are subsidiary articles that need cleaning up, so all that I can undertake to do is a very slow bottom-up effort starting on those articles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would benefit Wikipedia greatly, as many of the subsidiary articles are quite bad. Good luck, as you will need it! Eau (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we replace the trumpet vine with a tree picture

The image under "Reproduction" of humming birds at Campsis radicans is not ideal for a page about trees. I've looked for a photo of butterflies pollinating Delonix regia without success, but perhaps someone can suggest a good alternative. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fony baobab flower

I have replaced the image with a nice one of a moth-pollinated flower which goes with the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction -- prose, not class notes

The section on reproduction sounds like class notes because it is. It should be written in prose, not jargon, and developed in an orderly fashion, not just moved line by line, lightly rearranged from a Power Point presentation. As a copy paste, and tired of reading about flowering gymnosperms, I removed it. Unless you have botanical knowledge to do better, let's leave out the copypaste and angioGymnosperms for now. Eau (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed the Reproduction section quite unjustifiably as there is nothing copy paste about it. I am working on this article trying to improve it and this is not helped by you removing chunks. If you don't like the section why don't you do something constructive like writing a replacement section? And looking at the other edits you had previously done, they are very unproductive. If you don't like the caption of an image you don't have to remove the image! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 18 lAugust 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Cwmhiraeth, I have to agree with Eau here. Reproduction in land plants is the material that has given us many headaches as students, a substantial book is needed to understand the material, so errors such as flowering gymnosperms, a pollen grain formed from multiple meiospores, etc. take deep thought to fix, and despair sets in when corrections are rapidly replaced by you with new errors. You have more energy than some of us can match. Let's just leave it for a while, longer than a week, so that headaches and tempers can improve, please. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing an image with a flowering gymnosperm is productive, as it removed something that should not be on Wikipedia. I

work full time, and I so not have the time to replace this right away. I will start writing such a section. You are fighting to keep yOur bad edits after admitting you apply random references you have not read and after admitting you do not understand botany, taxonomy, or evolutionary biology (obviously), so I do not know how to handle your battle for bad biology. I am not sure why you are doing this. I will proceed and delete as necessary. Eau (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"yOur bad edits after admitting you apply random references you have not read and after admitting you do not understand botany, taxonomy, or evolutionary biology (obviously)," - I'm not sure where you get all this information from, its news to me. As for removing the image, that was wrong. However, it will be good to have some experts improve the article and I will keep away from the botanical part at least for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

PMSL. You are going to keep away from the botanical parts of an article titled "Tree". That will be clever. Anyway, it appears that we now have consensus to remove this rewrite, since you are the only editor who has expressed support for leaving it in place and at least 6 others have said indicated should be removed. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't been keeping up with changes, but this is a total disaster. If a student in my sophomore-level botany course were to turn in something like this, I'd give it a "C", because I'm an easy grader. It's not so much that it's wrong, but that it misconstrues, so a novice reader leaves with plausible misinformation, which will be difficult to correct later on.

And there is no reason to have the section. "Tree" is in large part a functional ecological grouping. Carnivore, herbivore, perennial plant, and succulent plant all lack a section on reproduction (please do not go and add one!). Just because this is an encyclopedia, that doesn't mean that every article needs to be its own self-contained encyclopedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like much of the article, it is a disaster, but it is the worst of what I have read by far. Yet, I am required to evaluate every single line.The opening sentence say simply that the person who wrote it learned nothing about the reproduction of plants. Faced with that, the flowering gymnosperms and the angiosperms with flowers similar to angiosperms, leaving me wonder how the flowers of angiosperms differ from the flowers of angiosperms, I do not see anything fixable without a semester long course in botany, after an introductory course in biology. This article should be blocked from Google searches until this part is removed. Eau (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, deleting this section would greatly improve the article. A rewritten part could be added back, but this is about an evolutionary form, not a synapomorphy, so all this leaves (as written), flowers (especially on gymnosperms), reproduction is a distraction. Tree is a strategy. This article misses that almost entirely. Eau (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Tree is a strategy." I really like that, and may well use it next quarter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing back to the original version

I am withdrawing my objection to reverting this article back to the previous version. The sections "Record breaking trees" and "Damage" should not be included as that would duplicate Record breaking trees and Tree health. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This artilce remains utter garbage.

I would have dearly loved to see this crap recieve GA status. I was sorely tempted to conduct the review myself and give it top marks all round. As much as that would have satisfied me, it would be a great disservice to Wikipedia and a major step back int the war against ignorance.

The article is still riddled with numerous inaccuracies, such as the howler that 100% of all growth in a tree occurs in the vascular cambium. IOW trees can only get thicker, they can never grow taller. How the hell anybody thought that could be true is astonishing, but it highlights the problem of people wjho are grossly ignorant trying to write an article using Google sources.

Beyond the multitude of easily verifiable factual errors, of which I have highlighted maybe 10%, there are at least 10 times that many misleading or confusing statements. A lot of these are actually the article contradicting itself, such starting out stating that a tree is a woody plant, then talking about ferns and other trees. Others are apparently errors of imprecise terminology, such as failing to understand the distinction between "evergreen", "pine", "conifer", and "non-broadleaf". Those four terms are conflated time and again within the article, leading to numerous erroneous or highly misleading statements.

We still have a major problem with the original author failing to understand the difference between "a crow is a black bird" and "A black bird is a crow", The article is still riddled with statements like "an area covered with trees is a forest", referenced to a dictionary site that defines a forest as "an area covered with trees. Apparently the author genuinely doesn't understand why the reference does not support the contention, but it;s beyond my ability to explain it to him.

The final two sections are so full of flowery prose and unencyclopaedic verbiage that they are close to meaningless. In many cases the use of flowery descriptions has made them outright factually incorrect, such as claims that orchids only grow on trees with mossy branches.

But the single biggest problem remains that the original author lacks the basic knowledge to contribute to this article, much less re-write it as he has done. It is so stylistically flawed and so full of errors that it can't be repaired without a massive re-write of every single section. Just removing the errors won't go halfway to solving the problem, because the overall structure is shot. The errors can be corrected, but that won't solve the problem that important information hasn't even been addressed, while tangential trivia is given entire paragraphs.Mark Marathon (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Myself and numerous other editors stated above that the previous version of this article was preferable to the new version introduced by Cwmhiraeth, and Cwmhiraeth eventually indicated that s/he would accept a reversion back, a capitulation which should be applauded. Yet reverting back was not done, presumably because either the recent history of the article had become toxic (and editors feared getting into hot water if they reverted back), or because in the meantime some editors had tried to improve the new version, and nobody wanted to eliminate those improvements (and the time taken therein). It seems there is now a choice: to revert back to the previous version, or work with what's there currently. Either way, just being critical of the article and of Cwmhiraeth's edits doesn't seem to me to be very helpful; it doesn't achieve anything, other than engender negative feelings and entrenched positions. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason that I still cannot fathom, I have been threatened with being blocked if I revert the article. So I cannot do so. If others wish to remove the rubbish, then I will applaud the move. And at no stage have I just been critical. All my criticisms have been constructive and accompanied by notes, suggestions and alterations where practical. However, as I already noted, the article is so hideously flawed from whoa to go that it can't actually be salvaged and, being unable to effect a revert, there is nothing that I can do about that beyond pointing out the fact. That isn't "just" a criticism. It is literally all that I can do.

Meantime Cwmhiraeth has yet again nominated the garbage for GA status.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review notes

I just quickfailed the article because it was covered in tags. I don't know if they were added in good faith or simply to disrupt the review. It seems like there is s content dispute between several users here, I suggest following dispute resolution procedures and/or proposing topic bans if a user's conduct here is seriously problematic. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans would be extreme. What we need is a "fast-track GA" ban. It's the push to make this look like a GA (rather than actually be a GA) that's generating the rancor.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that. On the 11th August Mark Marathon signs off a 60K word change with the edit comment that "I hope the article stays at this standard. I really do". That version contains many of the words phrases and sentences that have now been so liberally sprayed with citation flags by the very same editor. What gives ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a volatile recent history to this article; the edit you refer to was Mark M reinstating a version he doesn't prefer (because he was facing a potential block for reverting to the version he does prefer), and the accompanying edit comment was sarcastic. On balance I think things might be easier all round if the pre-rewrite version was reinstated; it had its own faults, but perhaps could be worked on without garnering such rancour. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The original version as of the 1st July 2012 was a real mess and itself had some of the faults that MM is now flagging together with some substantial holes in the information. Sarcasm, the use of hectoring language and flinging a bucket loads of citation tags at the article enthuses and encourages nobody. I, for one, find the 1st July version unacceptable and if MM and a few others, who seem to find criticism easy and constructive involvement more difficult, were to assist in fixing the problems rather than commenting on them we might begin to make progress.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it had faults. My view on this issue is not strongly held, and my suggestion above was guided by a desire to move things forward. In fact personally I don't care which version is used as a starting point, as long as constructive involvement does indeed occur from then on. I agree that the hectoring language isn't helpful - see my comment in the section preceding this one. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should pick a version. My preference is for the current version, because it has a better structure than the old version, but like PCW this is not a strong preference. Tdslk (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement that makes no sense

Currently in the article there is the statement "On the ground underneath trees there is shade, shelter, undergrowth, leaf litter, fallen branches and decaying wood"; could someone please explain precisely why this statement makes no sense, as has been claimed. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess that only the editor that tagged it can explain it. It makes perfect sense to me and is such a readily understood statement that IMHO it needs no supporting reference. But (sigh) I have given up on this, in the face of sarcasm and bullying comments from editors who assert that they are experts but do nothing to improve other than to scatter citation tags around or carp from the sidelines.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence seems clear to me as well. Tdslk (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The first problem I have with the statement that it seems to be patently untrue. It is fairly rare to find fallen or decaying wood underneath trees in sclerophyllous woodlands or savannas because of the growth habit of the trees and the frequency of fires. Take a look at | thisimage, selected at random from Google. Not a lot of fallen or decaying wood underneath those trees. Viewing the same image will also demonstrate that there is no undergrowth, as the term is normally used. Since a statement that undergrowth and decaying wood are to be found under all trees seems factually incorrect, it requires clarification.

The second issue is that we have already established multiple times in this article that various timbered areas have no undergrowth (eg "A small wooded area, usually with no undergrowth, is called a grove" and "In cool temperate parts...there may be little plant life on the forest floor". Since the the statement contradicts the rest of this article, it needs clarification.

And the final reason for my puzzlement is what actual information this is meant to be conveying. The topic sentence of this paragraph says that trees provide habitat for arboreal organisms, which is fine, if somewhat tautological. Then the paragraph notes epiphytes and arboreal foods, which is good. Then it starts talking about what is on the ground. What relevance does stuff on the ground have to habitat for arboreal organisms? And if it has no relevance to arboreal organisms, it seems like a complete non sequitur. So what if there are dead branches and shelter under trees? Why not mention that there are forest fires and predators, falling coconuts, squirrel shit, compacted soil, thorny shrubs and toxic litter under trees? The sentence comes from nowhere and leads nowhere. What information is the reader expected to take away? I can't fix this statement because I have no idea what the author is intending to say.

I suspect that the real problem is that this whole section was terribly flowery and unencyclopaedic, trying to paint some picture of a sylvan wonderland. It's been improved somewhat, mostly by amputating chunks, but now it lacks any coherent outline and statements like this one have become orphaned.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the paragraph is: "Trees are an important part of the terrestrial ecosystem, and provide a habitat for a community of arboreal animals and plants." To my mind, that is a topic sentence for a paragraph that includes discussion of arboreal habitat, but can also include discussion of other effects trees have on ecosystems, such as the sentence in question. I agree with you that the things mentioned in the sentence are not universally found under trees (except for shade, I guess), but they are commonly associated with trees. Perhaps the sentence would be better if it read: "On the ground underneath trees there is shade, and often shelter, undergrowth, leaf litter, fallen branches and decaying wood." Would you find that acceptable? Tdslk (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If the sentence in question is too broad to be always accurate, it can easily be adjusted in a manner such as Tdslk has suggested. It strikes me that if an attempt is to be made to mention the place of trees within the ecosystems of which they are part, then describing their effects on (and relationship to) what is on the ground beneath them is highly relevant. Provided too much detail doesn't make the article unbalanced, then why not write of forest fires, the soil, toxic litter etc.? I view the way forward with this article is to fix the errors and judiciously expand the information. I write judiciously because "tree" as a topic is non-specialist yet potentially enormous, and it seems pertinent to me for such an article to touch lightly upon many areas, with examples for illustration of points. If there are errors, they should be corrected. If statements are too Euro-centric, they should be altered/expanded. All of this is achievable with a little collaboration. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume from your comments, Tdslk, that what the author is trying to convey is that those things provide habitat for other organisms. The trouble is that seems to conflict with the claim that trees provide habitats for arboreal organisms. A large part of my puzzlement was due to that. So can I suggest changing "arboreal organisms" to "associated organisms" or something similarly broad.

The comment would still be somewhat of a non-sequitur even with that, and misleading to boot. The point seems to be that trees provide alternative habitat and microclimate. But that by itself is a hangover from the "sylvan wonderland" format. Yes, trees produce habitat, but the whole point of the tree form is to eliminate habitats for any competitors or predators. This is why trees will outcompete other plants forms in so many situations, and why forests have such low animal biomass compared to their NPP. IOW trees remove food and shelter more than they provide it.

I agree, PaleCloudedWhite, all that information needs to be added to make this section even partially complete. If we are going to touch lightly upon the relationships between trees and other organisms it seems the primary point should be that trees exist primarily to exclude other organisms. Listing the beneficial aspects to paint a rosy picture of the "wonders of the forest" kind of misses the point.

The problem is, as I noted above, the article is composed of 2/3 misleading, inaccurate and confusing material like this and I don't have the time to correct all of it, and given past events absolutely no enthusiasm. The article really needs to be reverted to the original form and expanded from there. Trying to take this mess up to GA status is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is not consensus to revert to the original form, which also had its faults. Furthermore over the last month or two several contributors have amended and adjusted the article so the rewrite is no longer as it was originally introduced. You claim not to have time to correct all the inaccurate material, yet you seem to have time to follow other editors' changes and constantly add tags to every other sentence they input. Your behaviour is uncooperative and appears to be founded less on a desire to improve Wikipedia, and more on a desire to intimidate all other editors into losing interest in the article, so that eventually only your words remain. I believe this is not helpful to Wikipedia, nor indeed ultimately to yourself, as you risk losing the goodwill of other editors (if you have not already done so). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Most Gymnosperms produce seeds in cones

Can we please get an actual quote for the claim that "Angiosperms produce seeds in fruits, while most Gymnosperms produce seeds in cones. I couldn't find any claim remotely like this in the first reference cited, and am having no more luck in the second. I have tried reading the obvious sections where such information would be found, as well as searching on "fruit" "cone", "gymnosperm" etc. and no such information appears to be in the references. I can accept that angiosperms produce fruits, given a sufficiently broad definition of fruit, though this could use clarification since in common usage nobody would refer to grass seed as a fruit. But the claim that most gymnosperms produce cones seems doubtful. Cones are produced primarily by conifers, a fact supported by both references, but gymnosperm isn't synonymous with conifer.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What color are they??

Trees are all sorts of different colours!! Many of the usual ones are green leaved, with brownish trunks. Some trees, such as the Gabbly Tree, which is pink, purple, and white in Colour. the Invisise Tree, located in central Australia, is a Blue colour in the Summer. In Winter time, it turns a burnt red. Very very interesting. Replying to give thread a timestamp so it will be cleaned up. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Trees are similar to people???

There's a part in the article that says 'Trees are similar to people. Both can withstand massive amounts of some types of damage and survive, but even small amounts of certain types of trauma can result in death'.

I don't think the previous is a good analogy or comparison. There are lots of living creatures (you could say insects mainly, mammals, reptiles, etc.) that have those characteristics, not only humans. And besides, to what kind of damage is it referring to? On second thought, humans are physiologically very fragile...Anyways, the phrase just makes you wonder what it's trying to mean, like, some things get to us but some don't, and that's the similarity? ???

Replying to give thread a timestamp so it will be cleaned up. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tree value approximation (USA)

Studies have shown that trees contribute as much as 27% of the appraised land value in certain markets and cite the following which can be extrapolated with care.

Basic tree values (varies by region)

diameter (inches)	value (1985 US$)
10	$1,729
14	$3,388
18	$5,588
26	$11,682
30	$15,554

These most likely use diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet (140 cm) above ground, not the larger base diameter. A general model for any year and diameter is Value = 17.27939*(diameter^2)*1.022^(year-1985) assuming 2.2% inflation per year. The right side of this equation is written to paste into Excel or Google to perform the calculation. Extrapolations from any model can vary widely, so value estimates for diameters larger than 30 inches (760 mm) may have to be capped so trees do not exceed 27% of total appraised land value.

Replying to give thread a timestamp so it will be cleaned up. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition

At present we have in this article ; A tree is a perennial woody plant. and then later we have Tree-like plants include some palms which are not trees but herbaceous with two references supporting the statement. Leaving aside that one reference is a pruning guide, the other, more reliable reference actually says tree. A perennial, generally greater than four meters tall, that tends to have a woody trunk and a well defined canopy. However, in palms the trunk has no true wood and lacks branches. I have a number of references to both European trees and New Zealand Trees which include palms, and in the case of the New Zealand texts , include Tree ferns.. I suspect that there is an academic point here in the definition of Wood and its subsequent extension to Woody . I am a botanist and I spend my retirement working as a volunteer at a University botanic garden. Although the experts there were not all in agreement about the precise definition of a tree, all agreed that they encompass Palms Perhaps the best definition there was that A tree is any plant that grows more than about 6 metres that boys can climb. Now none of this stands muster as a reference, but I do suspect that in looking for academic purity we are at risk of loosing sight of what the general public across the globe would reasonably understand a tree to be. I personally understand the word Woody to mean wood or material that behaves much like wood, rather than the precise botanical definition of wood. I suspect thatt if we could reach agreement on the definition of a tree, we might prevent some of the more rancorous exchanges over the last few weeks.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct to explore this. In my view "tree" is not a precise botanical term, but a general one, based on general morphology. Somewhere else on this page User EauOo referred to the tree form being a strategy, and if such an approach is used as a definition, then whether the plant concerned is formed of wood or not is beside the point. To state that something is not a tree because it is herbaceous is placing a narrow construct around what constitutes a tree, a construct which is not shared by the general population, who of course refer to palms as "palm trees". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Excluding palms is commonly done by botanists, though I certainly agree that it is not ordinary usage. Also agree that tree ferns warrant their name, although boys probably don't often climb them (girls might perhaps be more adept). Some sources are this definition from Beentje, H.; Williamson, J. (2010). The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Perennial wood plant with secondary thickening, with a clear main trunk. (The distinction between tree and shrub is fluid, but generally accepted to be dependent on the single trunk, and on height, a tree being at least 2–3 m tall.)

and this site which explains primary and secondary xylem.

Perhaps we could line up more than one definition, something like what is done on the fruit page (though that page is not an example of fine polishing)? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite that the common sense of "tree" is broader than woody plants. It's worth mentioning the narrower definition in the article, but if it doesn't at least mention tree ferns and palm trees, it will be confusing. To add to the confusion of following a wood-based definition, there are probably Dracaenas that have more lignin in their (anomalous) secondary growth that many cycads.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So I've written a draft (don't know much about Dracaena), good-faith edits or comments welcome. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs to address the broader definitions of trees, I think the way it is done now is confusing and leading to contradictions within the article.

For example, we have the introduction noting that by some definitions trees include things like palms (and by extension bananas, tree ferns and club-mosses) which have a tree growth form and are commonly called "trees". We then move on to start the next section with an illustration of lycophyte, labelled as a tree. So far so good. But we then go on to state that trees are exclusively seed plants, and that they all have woody tissue. At this stage the article starts seriously contradicting itself, and anyone attempting to use this article to understand what a tree is, is going to be very confused.

The article certainly needs to address the multiple definitions of trees, but it also needs to be very clear exactly what definition is being used at all times. If it doesn't do that, it ends up contradicting itself and becoming inaccurate.

I can see two solutions to this:

1) We straighten it out in the lead. Something like "Although various definitions of tree may include......, this article is only about the botanical definition of trees, which is as follows.....". I personally don't like this because, as you can see from the talk section below, the lead section becomes messy and confusing to some readers when we try to to include all definitions straight out the gate.

2) We have a new section on "Definition" immediately following the lead." This is what the Plant article has done, and it works quite well IMO. Here we can lay out all the possible different usages with histories and explanations of where and why they are used. If they can produce a usable article on something as ill-defined as a plant, I'm sure we can do so for trees. But at the end we still need to clearly state "the rest of this article is only using definition X".

My 2c. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a great problem with your version 2 as far as dealing with the definition in a separate section near to the head of the article. However, I am firmly convinced that the article itself must deal with the full compass of the definition and not be restricted to what I suspect you mean by "the rest of this article is only using definition X". . I believe that we may need separate sections for the major tree types, but they should certainly all be there.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have made a start to that end.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited what's been done so far, though my botany knowledge isn't adequate to comment on the strictly botanical aspects, so I'll leave that to others. I'm short of time at the moment so can't write much. On a general point all I advise is that all contributors make changes to the article slowly and incrementally, so that all involved editors have chance to assess and comment, so that the article development proceeds collaboratively; hopefully then that will avoid any rancour and accompanying sense of paralysis. I think it's excellent that editors are discussing changes before making them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored "In botany, a tree is..". We need to make it clear that this article is about the botanical subject, as opposed to trees in taxonomy, or genealogy, or cluster analysis or database design or any of the other common usages of the word tree. A tree is an inherently botanical topic. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

If I look at the sections of this article I find that the ones that carry more load are, or should be "Parts and function", "Evolutionary history" and "Ecology" (in fact I have some doubts about ecology). Probably most of the important thinks to be said about trees can be included in these three sections. The easier seems to start with "Parts and function".--Auró (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Parts and function

The first thing I see is that this section includes two different aspects, that may be could be split, no that it is imperative, but lets consider the advantages of doing it. Parts makes reference to structure or anatomy, and function to physiology. Here we are not in the lead section, and therefore can afford to be a little more scientific. To have the description of the structure separated from the physiology has some advantages, the more important being that it is easier to explain the working of the system as a whole. So my proposal is to proceed to split this section into two

• Structure

• Physiology

--Auró (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. I can't see how structure and function (or more precisely anatomy and physiology) of trees can be separated. The two are intimately intertwined. I can't see, for example, how we can discuss the anatomy of the leaf without discussing photosynthesis or translocation in some detail. Without reference to physiology, the anatomy of a leaf seems to be restricted to "some are flat, some are needles, most are green". Similarly, I can't see how you can discuss the physiology of reproduction without any reference to flower or fruit anatomy. There's a good reason why freshman botany texts encompass anatomy and physiology in one large volume.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a tree more complicated than a human being? I think that if human anatomy and human physiology are even separated disciplines, segregating both for tree should not be that difficult. Said that, I also recognize that doing it the other way is perfectly possible, and maybe it is a question of preference. I would prefer to split it, but as now is integrated, we can work as it is.--Auró (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see isn't t a tree is more complicated than a human being, it s that it is much simpler, in the sense of being modular, and they aren't a taxonomic group so they don't share much anatomy. Human anatomy consists of information like "The heart lies centrally is a solid, muscular organ that lies centrally in the chest cavity", "The hand contains 27 bones" and so forth. Because trees are modular, all we can really say (that is specifically relevant to trees) is that the trunk is rigid and that leaves are found on the upper part of the tree. To make it relevant to readers, it seems necessary to go into the physiology of the tree: why is the trunk rigid and why are the leaves on the upper part of the tree?

Strangely I am with MM on this one but from a different perspective. This article is Tree and not Plant and thus only deals in any detail with those aspects of plant that are peculiar or exclusive to trees - all the rest is covered in outline only. I would suggest that although there are striking structural differences between trees and, for example, herbaceous plants, they are not too demanding to describe and the changes to physiology that such structural changes require (or the other way round if you prefer) are best described in the context of structure.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

Will you please add a <!-- hidden note --> in the "superlative tree" section alerting any editors that there is a redirect at [[Tallest tree]] targeting that section so that if they change the section heading they know to change the redirect target? Thanks. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Benign, minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013

Will you change "sycamore" under the ecology section to "sycamore maple"? The given latin name (Acer pseudoplatanus) refers to this tree, not a true sycamore whose latin name is Platanus occidentalis. The same error occurs in the image directly to the right of this. The linked article refers to Acer pseudoplatanus as "sycamore" but is the only article I have ever read to drop the "maple" from the name. Here is a link to the USDA plant profile for the tree and the wikipedia page for the tree: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ACPS , http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acer_pseudoplatanus. I suspect that this is a common name in Britain, but I feel referring to it as "sycamore maple" will bring further clarification to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlholback (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Roots

I have moved the part devoted to the symbiotic relationship between roots and fungi. This is a general concept that applies to most trees, and should come first than the special descriptions, now located at the end of the section. This last part is quite interesting and useful, but I propose to simplify it a little, as it now has an extension that is about 40% of the whole section. Probably a 20% would be more adequate. --Auró (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like for this to be added: The quaking aspen often grows multiple trunks from the same root system. The oldest living thing on earth is believed to be a quaking aspen grove/root system in Utah -various sources including books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachoox (talk • contribs) 07:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

There is a sound Wikipedia practice that considers lead sections should be simple, and its content be elaborated having in mind more this purpose than scientific reasoning; considering what, I propose to change the first paragraph of the article in this way:

"A tree is a woody plant, usually with a single trunk taller than about two meters, a root system that anchors it to soil, and a branch system that supports its leaves, flowers and fruits."

I would like to participate in the improvement of this article, mainly by rearranging its lay-out, and as a consequence simplifying it, but I mean to proceed step by step.--Auró (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the definition of "tree" has more than one circumscription; the current wording of the lead addresses that fact, whereas your proposal does not. Although the lead could be reworded to be simpler to read, the simplification as proposed above would be unsatisfactory in that it ignores the multiple definitions of "tree". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that making it simpler to read would be very positive. Also see that my change proposal is only for the first paragraph.-Auró (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite that it would be a disservice to readers to, in effect, state at the beginning of the article that there is one true definition of a tree and anything they might be hearing to the contrary in class or in other reference material is wrong. The multiple definitions are very important and need to be right at the beginning. I agree that the lead is too long, but that would be better addressed by breaking off a section, but not by breaking off a section for the divergent opinions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really just a continuation of the definition discussion above. And while I agree that we shouldn't say that any verifiable definitions are wrong, I also don't think that we should clutter the lead with the literally dozens of possible definitions. I suggest that, just for the lead, we use the broadest reputable definition that we can find. A definition that encompasses all the others. Something like "A tree is a plant with the leaves(or other photosynthetic organs) held clear of the ground by the trunk". That would be true regardless of what specific definition you want to use. We can then note that there are multiple alternative definitions that narrow down what is and is not a tree, and then go on to expand on those definitions in a "Definition" section. But for the lead, I really do agree that devoting hundreds of words to competing definitions is unnecessary and doesn't really help people who just want to know whether this is the article they are looking for.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a tree

Sorry, but I think that many of the readers of this page will be students who want to trip up their teachers. See Illustration. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Of course it's not a tree. With a total height of less than 3 inches, the "leaves" are not held clear of the ground in any conceivable sense, whether by a trunk or any other mechanism.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you understand that height needs to be part of the definition. How these leaves are not held clear of the ground is beyond my understanding. I wish you'd leave this article alone. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the important point is to have a good article about trees. Maybe if we concentrate on that, then it will be easier to come with a good lead section. So my proposal is to go and try to improve the article structure.--Auró (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the lead with broadest definition I can find. Ive also added a definition section. It's surprising, looking around, just how ill-defined "tree" is. The FAO, for example, defines bamboo as a tree. Many university forestry/botany departments and journals are happy to define bananas or papayas as trees, and don't even blink at the use of the term "herbaceous tree" for these plants. This makes the task of trying to work the definition into the lead even less appealing. I've tried to reflect the diversity of definitions into the definition section, starting with various reputable sources stating outright that no botanical definition exists. It still needs material added, for example ATM there is no definition that excludes vines.

Unless anyone thinks we should remove all this and call the FAO and University definitions wrong, we now have to make a decision on how to proceed. We can go through the whole article and change it to reflect the broader definition, or we can pick a definition and state unambiguously that this is the definition we are using for the rest of the article. In terms of producing a quality article, I prefer the former. In terms of being lazy, I prefer the latter.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree the lead section should be short, and preferably contain both the definition of what is a tree (possible multiple definitions if relevant) each with a proper source of that definition. Personally I know of only one, the botanical definition: "A tree is a woody plant, with a single trunk taller than about two meters". That it has a root system that anchors it to soil, and a branch system that supports its leaves, flowers and fruits etc. is part of the description rather than the definition. No proper source for my definition. Shrubes and wines are not trees because they dont' have a single trunk taller than about 2 meters. Palms, Cycads, Tree Ferns and Bamboo are not trees because they don't contain wood (with Lignin). Primary problem with this stringent botanical definition is of course that many "trees" can grow as both trees or shrubs depending on soil and climate, oak is a good example of this. It can grow to a 45m single-trunk tree with no branches at all below 30m, and it can grow as a less than 2m tall shrub when growing in wind-swept sandy soil near the sea. --Honymand (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Personally I know of only one, the botanical definition: "A tree is a woody plant, with a single trunk taller than about two meters"."

So is a papaya, a coconut or a mallee a tree? Because plenty of botanists consider them to be trees.

"Shrubes and wines are not trees because they don't have a single trunk taller than about 2 meters."

What about lianas. They have single, woody stems up to 80 metres. So why are they not trees? Or what about Banyans? They don't have a single trunk taller than 2 meters. Does that mean they are not trees? Or how about vine trees? They start life as a vine, and gradually become self supporting trees over a period of decades. Does that mean that they are not trees? Or do they only become trees when after decades of producing seeds?

"Palms, Cycads, Tree Ferns and Bamboo are not trees because they don't contain wood (with Lignin)."

As the references show, many eminent botanists and foresters disagree.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am well-versed in trees. How about this: " There is no definitive definition of a tree because many trees are small and can be considered shrubs. However a tree can be identified by leaves or needles that grow on a branch that grows on an established trunk made of wood.

Trees have two main categories: evergreen and deciduous, Evergreens are very tolerant of cold weather and do not lose their leaves or "needles" every year. Deciduous trees grow leaves in the spring and lose the in the fall creating a natural beauty and great photography oppurunities" Also: Trees tend to be long-lived,[1] some reaching several thousand years old. The tallest known specimen on Earth is a California Redwood at 115.6 m (379 ft) and they have a theoretical maximum height of 130 m (426 ft). California redwoods or (Sequoia Sempervirens) are interesting because no specimen has been known die of old age.[2] Trees have been in existence on the Earth for 370 million years. I believe this wood make a good intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachoox (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I also believe that a small section about bonsai would do well in such a broad article. Bonsai is an art originating in Japan. It is growing trees but pruning and shaping them to be very small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachoox (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"There is no definitive definition of a tree because many trees are small and can be considered shrubs."

The size is only one tiny part of the reason for there being no agreed definition. Bananas, tree ferns and bamboo for example, would never be considered shrubs, yet they are not trees under many definitions.

"However a tree can be identified by leaves or needles that grow on a branch..."

So a Saguaro is never a tree no matter how large it gets until it grows its first branch, and then it becomes a tree overnight? And Jacksonia scoparia is never a tree, even when it grows to over 7 metres in height, because it lacks both leaves and needles? And while a cane palm is a tree, the much larger coconut palms are not trees, because they lack branches? It seems that there is much more to identifying a tree than just branches and leaves.

"... that grows on an established trunk made of wood..."

So a palm is not a tree, and a papaya is not a tree?

"Trees have two main categories: evergreen and deciduous"

That's certainly one possible categorisation, but certainly not the main one. What about hardwoods and softwoods? Or tropical and temperate? Or microphyl, mesophyll, notophyll etc? Why are those not also "main" categories?

"Evergreens are very tolerant of cold weather and do not lose their leaves or "needles" every year."

Many evergreens do indeed lose their leaves about once a year on average. The only difference is that they don't do so simultaeously.

"Deciduous trees grow leaves in the spring and lose the in the fall..."

What about drought deciduous trees, that lose their leaves in spring, and regrow them at the onset of the wet season in early winter? Aren't they also deciduous?

"... creating a natural beauty and great photography oppurunities""

How about creating an unsightly mess, a fire hazard and a refuge for vermin? Aren't those just as important?

"I also believe that a small section about bonsai would do well in such a broad article. Bonsai is an art originating in Japan. It is growing trees but pruning and shaping them to be very small."

But if a bonsai is a tree, then why is a rose not also a tree?Mark Marathon (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be difficult to make a simple intro to an article that is about such an ambiguous word. What about concentrating on the "trees" everyone agrees on, and then add the ones that could be counted as trees according to some definitions, like bananas, palm trees, bamboos, etc?

My personal tree conundrum is the dwarf birch. To me it is primarily a birch, and hence a tree. The fact that it rarely gets taller than 50cm is secondary. But that is just my take. Other people are bound to have other opinions. Mlewan (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is twofold. Firstly, we are essentially just defining a tree as "What we are pointing at when we say that is a tree". That doesn't really help anyone who wants to know what a tree is, or even just wants to know what the article is about. I can't see how we can start an article with "A tree is one of these things that we all agree to be trees". The second problem is deciding which are the trees that everyone agrees on. I assume you mean things like oaks and eucalypts, but the problem is that there are plenty of oaks and eucalypts that most people wouldn't consider to be trees. Defining "trees that everyone agrees on" is going to be even more difficult than defining tree.Mark Marathon (talk)

Botany tree

Isn't a tree just a tree, in botany and not in botany? I mean, I'm no botanist, but I know what a tree is. So does my 5 year old nephew. Then again, he could have a degree that I am unaware of. I will get back to you on that for sure, but I am still pretty positive he's just a kid. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe and maybe not. Life was never meant to be that simple. It all stems from the lack of any widely accepted definition of a tree. To try and help (?!) some botanists have defined a tree as having (amongst many other things) woody tissue. Wood also has a precise botanical definition which means that, taking these two definitions together, Palm trees and Tree ferns (as examples) would not be classified by these botanical definitions as trees. And then on the obverse we might have debates about Bonsai "trees" that are only 6" tall. Hopefully your nephew will have finished his PhD on "the definitions of Trees" by now and can provide much needed edification.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am pointing out to the ridiculous notion of opening up the page with "In botany...", as if a tree were some hard to understand concept only encountered in the depths of highly learned botanical discussion. It's a very common word that is learned at a very early age, so get into the botanical issues later on in the article but open with generalities. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What you are apparently unaware of is that tree is also a commonly used word in database design, in genealogy, in couture, in cladistics and in numerous other fields. There is nothing ridiculous about the notion of opening up the page with "In botany...", because we are indeed talking about what the word tree means in botany, not what it means in database design, genealogy, couture, cladistics or any other field. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the definition is even very good. "a tree is a plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting leaves or branches". I could say a sunflower has an elongated stem, but it ain't a tree. 86.160.218.148 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could contribute by explaining to us why it isn't a tree, while papayas and bonsais are trees. When you've completed that exercise, I suspect that you will understandthe reasons why there is no single satisfactory definition of a tree.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious to anyone that isn't a tree. If you don't understand that then you have no business lecturing others. 86.167.124.229 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious in an encyclopedia. That is what encyclopedias are for, to define and catalog knowledge. If it is obvious to you, as you say, then perhaps you can explain it in writing here to improve on, or come up with a suitable definition. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly come up with something better than the existing, but I can't be bothered arguing against people who think a sunflower is a tree, especially when they adopt such a patronising attitude. "... explaining to us ... completed that exercise ..." ... who do you think you are? A schoolteacher talking to a pupil? 86.167.124.229 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain then. As per your "who do you think you are" comment, please remember that when you come here you are expected to check your attitude at the door. Being antagonistic and accusatory will not get you far. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to User:Mark Marathon. 86.167.124.229 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically I just did, as he's reading this and I am sure he is already aware of them. The rules of Wikipedia apply to everyone, editors and admins alike. Let's abide by them. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013 about incorrect captions

I have found that the image of elm, ash and sycamore seeds in the 'tree' article is incorrect. It says the last seed is Sycamore, but it is Sycamore Maple. The real Sycamore is Platanus occidentalis. You have the seeds of Acer pseudoplatanus, which is latin for false sycamore maple. I strongly suggest that you either change the image or the captions so they suit each other. Thank you. Box2529 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Although our article on Acer pseudoplatanus indicates the tree is sometimes called simply "sycamore", that usage is confusing. I have changed it to read "sycamore maple", which should be unambiguous. Rivertorch (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To a certain extent. I think "sycamore maple" is principally a North American term. In England Acer pseudoplatanus is indeed just known as "sycamore". In Scotland it's known as "plane", so Scots are ill-served either way. Common names can be a bit of a minefield and I'd avoid them where there's ambiguity, but if they're going to be used, it's possible "sycamore maple" is the least worst option. At least the scientific names are there as well. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to just use the Latin names in the caption. Thoughts? Rivertorch (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That would seem sensible were it not for the fact that I notice all the other picture captions have common names first followed by scientific names within brackets (or parentheses in AmEng), so for consistency we'd probably have to change them all..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no perfect solution, I guess. As I see it, an unfamiliar name is better than an ambiguous one, and the scientific name is linked for anyone who wants to see what it is. We could include multiple common names, but not without cluttering up the caption to a significant degree. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. It's simplest in my view just to get rid of all the common names. I'm always aware that common names versus scientific names can arouse a certain amount of passion, so I try not to push too hard where it's not crucial. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Explaining removal of referenced material

Bgwhite, I copied and pasted the text straight from the bonsai article. To give myself a base to work out a good summary. Wiki policy states don't just duplicate content across articles. I left out the ref as I didn't believe a reasonable person would question the meaning of the word Bonsai. So I have reverted your edit. ?oygul (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

?oygul, you can copy between articles as long as its attributed, but it is discourage. In any case, I now understand why you did it and it is ok. Could you add a ref for the paragraph as every paragraph should have a ref. Also for next time, please add an edit summary so people are not left guessing. Bgwhite (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, Actually text only needs a ref, for content that a reasonable person might contest. WP:V I'll take on board to clearly summarize on all my edits when removing text. ?oygul (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Taiga as climax in cool temperate regions

I've removed this because the reference doesn't support the statement. The statement was that "In cool temperate regions, conifers predominate, and the climax community is moist taiga forest". However the reference simply says that trees are the climax vegetation of taiga. It never says that taiga is the dominant community in all or even most cool temperate areas. Of course if you look at the Wikipedia articles on tundra, steppe or temperate rainforest it should be clear that conifers are not the predominant trees in cool temperate regions and that the "climax" community of many cool temperate regions lack trees altogether. I think we need to be very careful of two things with our references. Firstly, that they reflect the whole world, not jut the USA. Secondly, and as a result of failing at this, that we don't conclude that all black birds are crows. I think what has happened here is that we have assumed that since taiga dominates cool temperate areas in the US, and since taiga is a tree-dominated climax community, we can therefore conclude that all cool temperate areas are tree dominated. Of course that's not logical, it's not true and it's OR. While taiga is indeed a tree dominated climax community in a cool temperate area, that doesn't support a claim that the climax vegetation of all cool temperate areas are taiga and that therefore all cool temperate areas tree dominated. All crows are birds, and all crows are black. That doesn't mean that all black birds are crows. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed not; taiga is not the only vegetation in the far north, but it is very widespread across both N. America and Eurasia, covering millions of square miles. If the claim went slightly wide, let's try again now: as you correctly say, trees are indeed the climax vegetation of taiga, just as they are of rainforest and others. I'll have another try with the additional references, feel free to tweak the wording slightly to ensure the claims are no stronger than they should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Trees as climax vegetation

The statement that trees are the climax vegetation wherever climate permits has been unreferenced for 18 months. As such I think we have a duty to remove it. It's certainly not ureasonable to remove it. The reference that recently was added to support the claim (http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/soilquality/Moorland%20Succession.pdf ) never makes any such claim. In fact it only uses the word tree twice: once where it notes that trees increase in late succession on some Scottish moorlands and once to say "look at a graph.". Neither of these statements comes close to saying that trees are the climax veg type even on Scottish moorlands, much less everywhere on the planet that climate permits.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, it talks about forest, which covers major types of climatic climax but certainly not all of them (think of saltmarsh, desert...). "Climax Community". Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved 28 June 2014. states that "Some examples of generally recognized climax community, which have achieved stability or equilibrium over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, and in some cases millions of years:

Sonoran Desert, USA and northern Mexico Daintree Rainforest, Queensland, Australia Namib Desert, Namibia and southwestern Angola Mixed podocarp/broadleaf forest, Rakiura Island Ttemperate forests, Ulva Island, New Zealand"

which is sufficient warrant for saying that forests made of trees, whether podocarp or broadleaf, can form climax communities.

For conifers, Nelson, Rob. "The Taiga". Retrieved 28 June 2014. states that "This biome is defined mainly by the trees that compose it. The climax trees are furs, spruces and pines. Subclimax plant communities may have deciduous trees like larch, tamarack and birch." which is warrant for saying that trees form the main part of coniferous climax forest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have that PDF open, and I can't see the word "forest" anywhere. A search using Adobe Acrobat Reader also does not return any instance of "forest". Apparently I am missing something. Can you tell me what page the word "forest" appears on so I can confirm?

Weird. However I've already quoted it above, complete with both 'trees' and 'climax', so it's readily verifiable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As for a claim that forests can form climax communities in some very small areas such as the Daintree or the Rakiura Islands, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that so long as a RS explicitly says that. This is very, very different from the deleted claim that trees are the climax veg type wherever cliamte permits. However we will need to note that the concept of climax is pretty much discredited by ecologists, as per the Wikipedia article on the subject and in keeping with WP:fringe. Issues with taiga reference I have discussed below.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well we're getting somewhere. There is no :fringe about this; very few ecologists would agree with the old view that climax communities are perfectly stable for ever (did anyone ever really believe that, I wonder), but many continue to talk about climax in a more relaxed way, and in much of the world, North and South, in between the saltings and the mountains, left to itself for even a few years, tree cover is what you rapidly get. (Anyone who has ever volunteered on a nature reserve can vouch for the fact, though that sort of knowledge is a little hard to cite.) The article still doesn't quite say that, but it's a bit better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. It's not worth cluttering the article up with these distinctions. I'm happy enough with it as it stands. Good job. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

The URL http://www.uwec.edu/Geography/Ivogeler/Travel/Portugal/cork-article2.htm should be changed to http://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/Travel/Portugal/cork-article2.htm We are in the process of re-designing our current website and moving a lot of pages to new domain names, this one included. If you could change this link that would be wonderful as the other one will soon die. 137.28.95.7 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done 02:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Work needed on overview

The overview section still needs a lot of work before this reaches GA status. The biggest problem is that much of it contradicts the material already given in the lede and definition sections. Some of the more obvious problems:

They have modified structures that allow them to grow much taller than herbaceous plants and spread out their foliage

We just said that herbaceous species such as palms are trees, so how can trees be taller than trees? Added to that, we just said that cacti are trees, and many don't seem to have any adaptations to "spread out their foliage" that herbaceous plants don't also have. Additionally, many herbaceous vines grow taller than the trees they use as support, so it's simply not true that trees grow taller than herbaceous species.

They are long-lived

We had this debate 12 months ago. Many trees such as papayas or acacias are short lives even compared annual herbs such as onions.

They are... plants that can increase their size each year by producing woody stems.

We just discusses in some detail how palms and bananas are tress without woody stems

They differ from shrubs, which are also woody plants

We just said that many trees are herbaceous, so how can we say that shrubs are "also" woody"?

Trees exist in two different groups of vascular or higher plants, the gymnosperms and the angiosperms. Both groups are seed plants.

How are tree ferns not trees under the definition already given?

Angiosperm trees are also known as broad-leaved trees. Many gymnosperms are also known as broad laved trees, and I doubt that anyone would consider a cactus to be a broad leafed tree. Softwood, conifer and evergreen are not synonymous.

Most angiosperm trees are eudicots, the "true dicotyledons", so named because the seeds contain two cotyledons or seed leaves. A relatively small number of angiosperm trees are paleodicots;

What about the bamboos, palms etc that we just said are monocot trees?

Wood gives structural strength to the trunk of a tree

Are we now saying that herbaceous trees have woody trunks?

The vascular system of trees allows water, nutrients and other chemicals to be distributed around the plant, and without it trees would not be able to grow as large as they do. Trees, as relatively tall plants, need to draw water up the stem through the xylem from the roots by the suction produced as water evaporates from the leaves.

While certainly true, this is equally true of any vascular plant form including the smallest cryptogram.

Tree-like plants include some palms which are not trees but herbaceous[10] monocots; and hence do not meet the definition of tree used in this article.

We just went into some detail about how palms are trees. We aren't using a single definition of tree in this article.

There's work that needs to be done here.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We appreciate your application to the Set of All Trees. Given your comments, we intend to review our criteria for admission. In the meantime, we welcome your continued contributions to our article. Willondon (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tree Description

Forests are central to all human life because they provide a diverse range of resources: they store carbon dioxide, aid in regulating climate, purify water, generate air (oxygen) and mitigate natural hazards such as floods. Forests are very productive, as each mature tree produces atleast ten new trees each year, over a 50 to 100 year life span, though under natural conditions most forest trees grow on for several 100 years. Left on their own, forests advance rapidly in a decade or so. Each hectare of dense forest absorbs about 5 to 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, depending on the forest type and climate. Many of the fruits and some household pets, are thought to have originated from the forests, and were domesticated and developed on farms and in villages close to the forests. AesopSmart (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you've put this here: this page is the talk page for an article, not a forum on trees. However, if you are proposing text for the article, this sample is clearly unsuitable for several reasons: it is unreferenced; some of the claims are unverifiable; and it is largely about forests, not trees. It is also unnecessary as the current text on the same topic has just passed a Good Article review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Trees are synonymous with forests, as a mature tree produces many new trees each year for many years, and thereby generates a forest.

The data on carbon fixation is obtained from reference values of the UNFCCC for clean development mechanisms with forestry. AesopSmart (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, this is not a forum for discussing tree topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add this information to the main page on trees, as this is hard scientific data on trees and forests. AesopSmart (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing forestry material.

I've removed a large chunk of material that simply isn't applicable to trees as a whole. It might be worth adding to some forestry article, but since the material is only true for transplanted, pot-grown seedlings of softwood species in the humid regions of the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere it's just too specific for an article on trees generally.. For example, to say that all trees are damaged by soil surface temperatures >52°C is obvious nonsense. If this were true, there would no trees in Central Australia, for example, since the soil surface gets to >60oC for at least 7 months of each year. There is also a lot of material that violates wp:nothowto. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Broadly, seconded. The material, right or wrong, could possibly be the basis of a specialized article but did not belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Tree :

Actually In this article page of tree in wikipedia , the writer mentioned Bamboo in the category of trees.But I was tought in school that Bamboo belongs to grass family. can anyone please help me which is corrrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpraveen (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The article explains the different definitions of 'tree', which is not a fixed botanical term like 'sepal'. Bamboos are indeed grasses, but they are tall and woody, which makes them treelike in some people's minds. They do not have secondary growth with growth rings, which other people may say is a better definition. The article is neutral on this question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Underground trees

I'm removing a large section of the definition sections that talks about "underground trees". This is a term that someone has coined for shrubs with lignotubers. That someone appears to be a reporter at the BBC. At this stage there is no evidence that any expert uses the term, not even the experts cited in the BBC article. The original article which the Beeb has bastardised uses the term "underground forest", complete with the quotation marks, then notes that another author likened these plants to underground trees. The article itself uses the more common term geoxyles to refer to these plants. At this stage all we have is the usage of the term in a single BBC article. Giving it any time in this article would be a violation of WP:FRINGE. Devoting an entire paragraph to a term used by one reporter clearly violates WP:UNDUE. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

'Underground trees' is not a newly-coined 'term' - it is a description of a well-known form of tree growth. Consequently the addition to the article should NOT be judged on whether 'reliable sources' have used the phrase, but rather whether the facts are correct. I am replacing the removed contribution. Paul venter (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The essay at "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth" is apropos. The addition certainly should be judged on whether reliable sources have used the phrase, rather than whether or not the facts are correct. That's the way Wikipedia rolls, and I hope the essay will explain why that's a good thing. Willondon (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As already noted, the term is not used by even reliable source. The sole reference given is a popular press interpretation of a scietific paper which notes that these pants were likened to trees and then states that the correct term for these plants is geoxyles, and that the paper will use that term. If you have evidence that the term is widely used by reliable sources then by all means show them to us. But at the moment we have only one misrepresented source. As such it can not be added to the article since it constitutes a fringe theory. This sort of nonsense is why so many articles, including this one, become a complete mess. Instead of discussing what the topic is about, everybody wants to use these broad subjects as a coatrack for their pet projects. The fact that one author used the term tree to describe a shrub or a kelp plant does not mean that those plants are trees. Please stop your edit warring, respect WP:BRD and discuss this issue here and allow consensus to be reached. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon you have a rich history of edit-warring and article ownership. Kindly do not post unsigned inflammatory remarks on my home talk page - any remarks belong on THIS page... Paul venter (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the contentious reference with a reliable source which mentions "underground trees". Paul venter (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool stuff. However, while the authors (Maurin et al.)[1] mentions "underground trees" (but properly calls them "geoxyles), they do not support the addition

• Some trees moved underground as a survival strategy in grasslands and savannah
  • They didn't "move underground" - some lineages evolved a largely underground growth form that could be seen an analogous to an underground tree.
• These species, which are trees with extensive subterranean, woody trunks, moved below the soil surface in order to escape the damaging effects of seasonal grassfires or extreme cold as in the Arctic tundra.
  • Maurin et al. does not call them "subterranean, woody trunks" but rather, quotes from another source which calls them "a lignified complex of root and shoot tissue". Although both are woody, root and shoot tissues are quite different anatomically.
  • As above, "moved below the soil surface" is an inapt way to describe evolutionary change. It's also at least partly incorrect (give the "root and shoot tissues" quote)
  • The source does not explain the origin, only provides a reasonable speculation as to why drove the evolution of the life form
  • Source makes no mention of tundra. In fact, the only mention of cold is the suggestion (which they reject) that this growth form evolved in response to snow in southern Africa.

In addition, I have questions about whether this belongs in the tree article at all. Maybe in woody plant, albeit in a different form, truer to the source. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the wording then change it, but don't remove the entire paragraph as a result. "The source does not explain the origin, only provides a reasonable speculation as to why drove the evolution of the life form" does not make any logical sense and perhaps needs rephrasing. "a lignified complex of root and shoot tissue" means roots and shoots that have become woody - I think you are splitting hairs here. You mention the wording "moved underground" three times in your list of objections - I think the repetition is unnecessary. Again, the presence of underground trees in the Arctic is well-known, but if you are unfamiliar with the idea I shall find a source to support it. Paul venter (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The source does not explain the reason these structures developed (cold, fire, etc.), so we can't claim that they do.
• A "lignified complex" means that these tissues are of both stem and root origin. Tree trunks are of stem origin. So...
• Your text used "moved underground" (or some variety thereof) multiple times, so it ended up in multiple quotes. Mostly it's worth noting because it creates a misconception of evolutionary change. I'm not saying that you share that misconception, but writing like that may communicate it, especially to people who hold (common) misconceptions about evolution.
• As for the Arctic - yes, sourcing is the problem. You credited "Arctic" to this particular source. And no, though I've worked with tundra vegetation, I am not aware that the woody plants, such as they exist, have "underground trunks". In fact, if that's the case at the site I worked, that would change my understanding of what we saw. (It's not my site, so my understanding isn't very important.) Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The exact definition of a tree can be problematic, but "underground trees" would be included by virtually nobody, despite a fanciful popular-press science article. Readers will almost certainly be coming here to learn about what is the common understanding of trees (and the definition of trees in dictionaries, textbooks, etc.) of a woody plant extending a considerable height above the ground. "Underground trees" could perhaps be included on a disambiguation page, although I would hope that it would lead to an article on geoxyles. Tdslk (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, I have reverted the article back to the version that doesn't mention "underground trees". Please will all editors cease further edit warring and instead continue to discuss this subject in order to achieve consensus. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting the article to a previous version. This is in line with WP policy and cites a reliable source for 'underground trees' viz. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25039765 . Deleting a reliably sourced contribution is frowned upon by WP and I gather the impression that some of the editors involved in the above 'discussion' have not even bothered to look up the reference source. Paul venter (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not do that again. I note that another editor already reverted your edit, which saves me the trouble. You can not add this material until consensus for its conclusion has been reached, either on this page or a dispute resolution page. At this stage we have three editors who feel that the material probably does not belong in this article, and only you claiming that it does. The consensus as it stands is that the material should not be added. I am sure that we are all willing to listen of you have some compelling reasons why you think this should be added. Or you can, of course, take this to one of the dispute resolution pages if you feel that we are being unreasonable. What you can not do is keep adding this material against the consensus. That is edit warring, you have been warned already on your talk page and if you persist you will be reported. in terms of your "reliable source for underground trees", you will note that the term is used by those authors as a term-of-art, hence the quotes. The authors then use the term geoxyles for the rest of the article. As noted above, the fact that one source refers to kelp as "underwater trees" or fungi as "microscopic trees" does not mean that fungi or kelp should be covered in this article. in keeping with Wikipedia policy this article should be about what readers will be expecting when they search for "tree", not about other things that are called trees as a term-of-art. Do you agree that this article should not cover kelp or fungi, even though it is easy to find scientists who refer to those things as "underwater trees" or "microscopic trees"? Or do you contend that this article should cover every organism that has ever had the term "tree" attached to it?Mark Marathon (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pasted from Paul venter's talk page - Hello Paul venter. As per WP:BRD, I have reverted the Tree article back to the version that does not mention "underground trees". This is so the subject can be discussed on the talk page and a consensus can be reached. Please note that my reversion of your edit is not a statement about my personal opinion on the matter. Please also note that if you undertake any further reversions, you will be contravening WP:3RR. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, please do not keep reverting back to your preferred version while the matter is under dispute - it doesn't solve anything. In order to stop the edit war, consensus must first be gained, and as per WP:BRD, this should be done with the article in its original version. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, instead of telling me not to revert would you kindly be specific about YOUR reasons for removing an adequately sourced contribution? Paul venter (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

He has given his reason several times: WP:BRD. When an edit is under dispute, the article stays in the original form until consensus is reached. Multiple editors have raised issues that suggest that the edits should not be included and a discussion is underway on whether they should be included. No other reason is required to remove your "adequately sourced contribution". The fact that it is under discussion is sufficient. Now would you care to actually discuss this an address some of the points raised above so we can resolve this? At this stage, consensus seems to be that this material properly belongs in a separate "Geoxyle" article with perhaps a "See also" link here. If that is not agreeable to you, can you explain to us why? Mark Marathon (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As Mark Marathon states, my reason for removing your addition is because it is under dispute and, as per WP:BRD, discussion should take place with the article in its original version. If due process isn't followed then all that will happen is an edit war, which doesn't solve anything and may lead to editors being blocked. I think it would be beneficial if more editors enter this discussion, so I will post a note at the talk page of WikiProject Plants. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have created a short article Geoxyle to which contributions or alterations are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is the English language wikipedia and so, per WP:JARGON, we prefer plain English to cod Latin. The word geoxyle (earth-wood) seems to be a crude neologism which does not appear to have any significant usage and does not appear in the OED. The phrase "underground tree" seems quite reasonable and gets more usage but if you're desperate for an alternative then xylopodium (wooden foot) - seems to get more usage. Xylopodium does not appear in the OED either and so we should always provide a plain English version first. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew D., does the term "underground tree" appear in the OED? If not then how did you conclude that this is considered to be the plain English term and hence the preferred term? In plain English a tree is a tall woody plant with a trunk, whereas an "underground tree" is a short, often herbaceous plant with no trunk and a woody root system. So how is "underground tree" any less jargon that "geoxyle". I will ask you the same question I asked above: I can find any number of articles referring to kelp as "underwater trees" or fungi as "microscopic trees". Do you think we should include those life forms in this article on the basis that they are described as "x trees"?Mark Marathon (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mention of oxygen emission needed?

I came here looking for information on trees giving off oxygen. This is a long article; did I just miss it? Didn't find the word "metabolism" on the page. Didn't find the word "oxygen" in this connection.

Especially with the focus on climate change today, don't we hear that trees are essential for providing oxygen?

I found some of what I was looking for here: http://mff.dsisd.net/Environment/TreePhys.htm (Excerpt:)

<<

The Necessities of Life

The following is brief discussion of each of six key requirements for trees. More detail of some topics is found later in this guide.

1. Sugars supplied by photosynthesis. Air and water are chemically recombined to form glucose, which stores energy captured from the sun. Oxygen is a byproduct.

2. Water is required for most metabolic activities and serves as a vehicle to carry materials through a tree. A large tree may move as much as 50-100 gallons of water on a hot summer day.

3. Nutrients. It’s not how much of a particular nutrient exists in the environment, it’s a matter of how available the nutrient is to the tree. For example, the atmosphere is largely composed on nitrogen, but trees can only use nitrogen in forms that have been altered by soil bacteria and other organisms. The major chemical elements used by plants are: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, sulfur, calcium, iron, and magnesium. . . .

>>

And here:

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-many-trees-are-needed-provide-enough-oxygen-one-person

(Excerpt:)

<<

Trees release oxygen when they use energy from sunlight to make glucose from carbon dioxide and water. Like all plants, trees also use oxygen when they split glucose back down to release energy to power their metabolisms. Averaged over a 24-hour period, they produce more oxygen than they use up; otherwise there would be no net gain in growth.

It takes six molecules of CO2 to produce one molecule of glucose by photosynthesis, and six molecules of oxygen are released as a by-product. A glucose molecule contains six carbon atoms, so that’s a net gain of one molecule of oxygen for every atom of carbon added to the tree. A mature sycamore tree might be around 12m tall and weigh two tonnes, including the roots and leaves. If it grows by five per cent each year, it will produce around 100kg of wood, of which 38kg will be carbon. Allowing for the relative molecular weights of oxygen and carbon, this equates to 100kg of oxygen per tree per year.

A human breathes about 9.5 tonnes of air in a year, but oxygen only makes up about 23 percent of that air, by mass, and we only extract a little over a third of the oxygen from each breath. That works out to a total of about 740kg of oxygen per year. Which is, very roughly, seven or eight trees’ worth.

>>

Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the simple answer is that this an article about a grouping of plants with similar growth form that we call trees. They share many characteristics with most other plants and algae including the grass and cereal covered savannas, the phytoplankton in the seas and lakes, the garigue and scrub in many Mediterranean climate regions etc etc. All of these plants (with a very few exceptions) are using carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to drive their metabolism and releasing oxygen as a by-product. Should we mention evolution of oxygen in every plant article ? Neither the article on Garrigue nor than on Savanna mention oxygen and very few (any ?) individual plant articles mentions it. However Photosynthesis does detail the process. I suspect that in the wider scale of things, Wikipedia ought to provide reliable information on how the Forests of the world contribute to oxygen production and carbon-dioxide removal and I am sure there is plenty of facts in Climate change. Whether there should be a section here, I personally am unsure, but I wouldn't oppose a consensus view in favour.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm

How does a tree provide oxegon Learnypeople (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Photosynthesis .... and it isn't just trees. It is grasses and algae and herbaceous plants and shrubs for example.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Trees are 74% water"?

In my research, I've come across "trees are 74% water". This article makes no reference to how trees are comprised of mostly water. Anyone? - tree hugger 2601:589:4705:C7C0:19CD:96F1:FF74:481B (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all organisms including animals and plants are mostly composed of water. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Biological taxonomy and phylogeny

I can't even find an instance of the word phylum or phylogeny in this article. Is this simple english wikipedia? I am incredibly disappointed. This is a baby article.

Also no instance of the word division for you botanists out there who don't like to use the term phylum. At this point I'd regard even botanists as superior to the dunces that wrote this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article. Trees are independently evolved growth forms in many phyla.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Trees are 74% water"?

In my research, I've come across "trees are 74% water". This article makes no reference to how trees are comprised of mostly water. Anyone? - tree hugger 2601:589:4705:C7C0:19CD:96F1:FF74:481B (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all organisms including animals and plants are mostly composed of water. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Biological taxonomy and phylogeny

I can't even find an instance of the word phylum or phylogeny in this article. Is this simple english wikipedia? I am incredibly disappointed. This is a baby article.

Also no instance of the word division for you botanists out there who don't like to use the term phylum. At this point I'd regard even botanists as superior to the dunces that wrote this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article. Trees are independently evolved growth forms in many phyla.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of information without sources

The second and third paragraphs have a lot of good information but no sources to go with them. Alexajim (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. A lead section is supposed to summarize the content that's presented in more detail within the body of an article. If the detailed content is adequately sourced, references aren't generally required for the summary content. (There are exceptions, but it's true for the most part. See WP:LEADCITE.) If you find something in the second or third paragraphs that isn't sourced later in the article, please note it here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706182814/http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/amber.htm to http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/amber.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Trees as vascular plants

I have deleted the following text:

Trees exist in two different groups of vascular or higher plants, the gymnosperms and the angiosperms. The gymnosperm trees include conifers, cycads, ginkgophytes and gnetales; they produce seeds which are not enclosed in fruits, but in open structures such as pine cones, and many have tough waxy leaves, such as pine needles.Most angiosperm trees are eudicots, the "true dicotyledons", so named because the seeds contain two cotyledons or seed leaves. There are also some trees among the old lineages of flowering plants called basal angiosperms or paleodicots; these include Amborella, Magnolia, nutmeg and avocado, while trees such as bamboo, palms and bananas are monocots.

We just finished saying that tree ferns and lycophytes are trees, and while they are vadcular plants, they are neither gymnosperms nor angiosperms. As such, saying that trees only exist inthose two groups is just plain wrong. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, something useful is being stated in the paragraph: there's no need to read anything exclusive into it. We could restate it as "there are by the way trees in both the gymnosperms and the angiosperms...", which is true and helpful - indeed, the great majority of trees are in these groups. I'll have another try. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are trees not angiosperms? I thought angiosperms meant flowering plants, and some trees do bear flowers in spring time. Vorbee (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The article explains the situation on this; there are coniferous and other trees, and the term isn't a formal botanical one, as it explains. I think if you read it through carefully you'll agree the definition, such as it is, is a broad church. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Tree nutrients?

The details of, or even a list of perhaps the 5 or 10 or so most important tree nutrients seems to be missing. Is this even the best article for it? Does it exist somewhere else on Wikipedia, where it is or can be explained? For example, there are a lot of articles and images that look something like this... How soil pH affects the availaiblity of plant nutrients, which list about a dozen key nutrients; but just not finding it explicated in Wikipedia.

For example, Maple trees in many Western US soils are known to have particular problems obtaining sufficiency of Manganese and Iron (e.g., iron chlorosis, even when iron is in the soil. But it seems tree nutrients in general should perhaps be discussed somewhere. Cheers N2e (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

I made a 3D modell about secondary growth. I would like to share the link from references on the page of the wikipedia. 1levivel1 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind of you - ingenious model!, but we can't do that unless it's on Commons really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Change "The shoots typically bear leaves" to "The shoots are typically bear leaves" 176.58.24.100 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly better as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bear is a verb here, meaning "The shoots typically carry leaves". It's not an adjective as in "bare leaves", nor are they food for a bear which eats shoots and leaves. Certes (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Tree apparency

@Chiswick Chap: I don't understand this edit. Can you explain? Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure there's much more to be said, and I'm a bit surprised both that you thought to insert it and (more) that you want to argue the matter. The material is entirely WP:PRIMARY, the opinion of a single research paper. It's a minor aspect, not worthy of a mention in an article which is not about the ecology of trees but is the top-level article summarizing all aspects of tree biology and culture, i.e. (to coin a phrase) the top of a tree of articles about wood and xylem and so forth. If the topic is discussed in a review article or textbook, indicating something closer to notability, then it might perhaps deserve a brief mention but only as a sentence in the Ecology section, certainly not a whole orphaned subsection to itself: but I frankly doubt it, and certainly not on the minimal evidence provided. All of this is basic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jactel et al 2021 is a review. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've reworded the entry - it didn't need a section, as I stated - to read like the rest of the article rather than naming authors and reading like a dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

rubber tree image

• 
  Proposed. Latex running down, clear image, showing previous cuts
• 
  Original. Latex barely visible, very dark image

Chiwick Chap I'm confused by your reversion of image with the comment "the original image actually shows the latex, the suggest replacement only pipes". I can clearly see the latex in this image. There are some others to choose from if required, as the current image is pretty poor imo. (Hohum ^@) 18:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How odd. I looked at the diff and there was a poor image with plastic pipes around a tree Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at a few diffs and can't reproduce it. Is the proposed image acceptable? (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"No such thing as a tree"

This blog article is interesting; it puts forward the idea that trees, like fish, are not a monophyletic group. Also, this. Are there other, non-blog WP:RS for this concept, and is it worth including in this article? — The Anome (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thought. The article already makes clear that not only are trees not a monophyletic group (a clade), they do not even have a single definition botanically. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So it does, and in the lede as well! I should read more carefully. I have added a para break to the lede to make this more apparent. — The Anome (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

Add more about the envirmoent 2403:580D:C20E:0:80F5:CC35:591F:6934 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done; the article's focus is plainly and correctly on trees as such; we have other articles on their environment in the shape of Forest and many others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Revision of Changes

@Chiswick Chap Hi there, I saw your reversion of my changes regarding transpiration and capillary action. Could we talk about it?

I disagree that it's tangential to the article to use precise language and call the processes what they are. Additionally, I didn't OR it, the citation that was already there correctly names these processes.

"It is the transpiration of water from leaves which is the main driving force for the movement of water in xylem."

and

"This attraction pulls water along inside narrow spaces (this is how a sponge can passively soak-up water). The force that drives this movement of water is the capillary force of cohesion-adhesion."

Furthermore, the previous sentence, "Trees, as relatively tall plants, need to draw water up the stem through the xylem from the roots by the suction produced as water evaporates from the leaves." is inaccurate at best. Trees needing to draw water up their stems has nothing to do with them being tall plants as nearly all plants need to move water through their bodies using similar processes, as far as I am aware. Infectedfreckle (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, trees have to do much more pulling up of water than low-growing plants. I've added the word "high", in ..."draw water high up the stem". There is a definite danger of going down a massive rabbit-hole about the mechanisms, but sure, we can link the terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing and compromising.

I appreciate your clear stewardship of such an important article, and if these changes open a Pandora's box, feel free to remove them and I will defer to your editorial experience. Infectedfreckle (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)