Talk:Basal shoot

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basal shoot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horticulture and Gardening

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What causes suckers to grow? If they stunt growth on the plant, what purpose do they serve the plant? --authraw 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is based on my own observations, and therefore can't be included in the article per WP:OR, but it appears the suckers sap energy from the original, older parts of the plant by developing a great deal of new growth. Horticulturists are often much more interested in maintaining the original growth, particularly in trees. Notice also that stumps and other plants which have lost their apical meristems are most prone to suckering. The purpose seems to be for a plant to renew itself, often but not always in response to trauma. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basal 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/20060410080026/http://www.rhs.org.uk:80/advice/profiles1004/treesuckers.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profiles1004/treesuckers.asp

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) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Incorrect" bold alt-title?

"Sucker" is a bold alt-title for this page (and sucker (botany) is a redirect here). But later we have "They are colloquially yet incorrectly denominated "suckers", which word colloquially denominates basal shoots and root sprouts." This seems like another case of an article picking a fight with itself. Why is this usage "incorrect", and if so, shouldn't this be integrated better? Otherwise I think better to characterise it as 'informal', say, rather than "incorrect". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]