Talk:Epicormic shoot

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Title of article

Currently called Epicormic shoot, but this does not clearly include "epicormic bud". How about Epicormic growth? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems appropriate to me. Drawn Some (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I think epicormic shoot might be best after all. A bud is after all a dormant shoot, and "epicormic growth" implies that the shoot is growing, and so is no longer a bud. I've edited the lead para to make it clearer. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conifers?

Epicormic buds and shoots occur in many woody species, but are absent from many others, such as most conifers.[dubious – discuss]

Redwoods? PPdd (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Thuja also have regenerative capabilities, although that still leaves most conifers as being without them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conifers with ES

The example from the article, "The long-lived Pseudotsuga menziesii forms epicormic shoots not in response to damage but as a means of forming growth on existing branches. The epicormic branching pattern has been observed to six iterations.[8][clarification needed]"
All krummholz conifers at crests look like resprouters to me (gotta get back up there and look)
Juniperus spp. - lots
Pinus longaeva? I am just guessing off the top of my head, but they all look pretty resprouty to me. How can a bristlecone pine live so long without resprouting?
Sequoia spp.
Pinus jeffreyi?
Pinus monophylla? ... ?

longest lived trees:

Lagarostrobos franklinii?
Picea abies? PPdd (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question, one I'm not sufficiently qualified to discuss with any real authority. It's possible that conifers which remain stunted due to environmental conditions perhaps remain in a semi-juvenile state (pure speculation here) and have increased resprouting capabilities as a result. What I do know (speaking as a gardener here) is that if almost any mature coniferous tree is felled or hard-pruned, regrowth doesn't occur. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington could have used some epicormic sprouting on that cherry tree. PPdd (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Australian species have these - good adaptation to aussie bushfires :) - click "what links here" at left as I think I've linked a few at some time or other...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I delete the claim about conifers not having ES? It really makes no sense to make the claim then give Douglas fir as one of the only examples of ES. PPdd (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally leave it in - it only says most conifers. See my comment above about not being able to prune conifers and expect regrowth - the exceptions are few and far between. Maybe remove the bit about Douglas fir - or qualify it? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a differnce between shocking the tree with too much cutting, and having ES, since most pines I have seen at crests appear to have resprouted quite a few times over centuries. But I am just a mathematician, so maybe I didn't look hard enough at them. PPdd (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epicormic shoot. 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/20110130175624/http://learnline.cdu.edu.au:80/units/sbi263/ecology/individual.html to http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/units/sbi263/ecology/individual.html

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) 02:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]