Talk:Quercus macrocarpa

October 2009

Contradiction: <<It is one of slowest-growing oaks, with growth rate of 30 cm (1 ft) per year when young.>> <<It is one of the most tolerant of urban conditions of the white oaks, and is one of the fastest-growing of the group.>>

Either the two statements are contradictory, or one of them has to be clarified.Star-lists (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that is is a fast growing *white oak* but a slow growing oak in general. However, all I have seen is that is is slow growing oak. Vstartesla (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quercus macrocarpa. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110927070907/http://www.rockhurst.edu/academic/chemistry/documents/pittcon2006poster_000.pdf to http://www.rockhurst.edu/academic/chemistry/documents/pittcon2006poster_000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

contradictory statements about age

Early in the article, it says trees "commonly get to be 200 to 300 years old, and may live up to 400 years". Later, it says "by 100 to 110 years". Could a knowledgeable person please clarify the expected life span of these trees? Pete unseth (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second this request. Although I can verify that the Bur Oak pictured in the infobox has been scientifically verified to be between 300-400 years old, probably around 350. So my guess is 100-110 is an error, probably a copy paste or something from another species of tree. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from Nebraska Native Flora

Category:Flora of Nebraska contains no native trees so far as I could see, which even for a prairie is incorrect. Bur oak is native and should be added to this list. Other trees like redbud, maple, ash, hickory, hackberry, and juniper also have native species.

It may be that trees are not included in ‘Flora’, but the page describes nothing of the sort. “Trees of ___” pages exist for other places, but not Nebraska, so I feel they should be placed here.

Furthermore, if trees are added there, they should have a subcategory, as should shrubs, alongside grasses.

I probably should have added this to the US or Nebraska wikiprojects, but it appears they are quite busy and a talk page for the category page does not exist. My apologies for adding many more trees than just Bur oak. Vstartesla (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]