Talk:Arboriculture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oceanic arboriculture[edit]

In Oceania, the term arboriculture is used to refer broadly to the practice of tree-cropping, especially in regards to food production. It has been so for some decades in the academic literature. When I have assembled more data, I will contribute to this page as I am writing a thesis on Oceanic arboriculture - we probably need to have sections describing regional definitions. Right now, I am trying to understand the difference between arboriculture and silviculture. Thus far, they seem rather small, and I suspect they may reflect regional (not practice) differences. Would be interested to discuss. Jhuebert (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Note: I have added some headers to this discussion - it was very hard to follow. Perhaps that long list of cultivated species is unnecessary and can be deleted, it is distracting to the discussion.[reply]

Debates of definition[edit]

this is to short, should be merged with forestry as a subsection ... or landscaping or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.30.152 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text from the article, which said it included the care of shrubs, vines, and other perennial woody plants, I don't recognise this definition. The accepted definition of the word, for instance at http://www.isa-arbor.com/ is for the care of trees only. Imc 10:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back in, with a sourced reference considered eminent among ISA certified arborists. Duff 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree with the sourced reference, since it is atypical, and the ISA site gives a typical and useful definition. I'll accept that arboriculture can deal with large shrubs, and climbing plants, where they climb trees. However, to claim that the care of all woody shrubs is arboriculture is not going to be understood within the accepted conventions of horticulture. Woody shrubs range from the semi-woody (Phlomis), to the common ones such as most roses, to the tree like, such as cherry laurel. The management of all these is considered horticulture, until they require specialist climbing for maintenance. Imc 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No particular argument with ISA's description, though as a working arborist, which I'm thinking you may be also, I've always understood good arboricultural practices to extend to all woody plants, small and large. My practice, largely in urban areas, has involved far more work on small wood than large. There are arborists who climb, and those who do not, that is clear. I do not think that the climbability of a plant is what defines whether the care of it is or is not arboriculture.

The addition of "some sources say" at the bottom of the article is a welcome gesture, but since we're having a minor edit war here, I want to offer this:

Merriam Webster online differentiates horticulture from arboriculture thusly:

"arboriculture: Etymology: arbori- + -culture (as in agriculture)

the cultivation of trees and shrubs especially for ornamental purposes

"horticulture: Etymology: Latin hortus garden + English -i- + culture -- more at YARD

the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants"

Furthermore, Encyclopedia Brittanica online treats arboriculture as follows: " cultivation of trees, shrubs, and woody plants for shading and decorating. Arboriculture includes propagating, transplanting, pruning, applying fertilizer, spraying to control insects and diseases, cabling and bracing, treating cavities, identifying plants, diagnosing and treating tree damage and ailments, arranging plantings for their ornamental values, …(the rest you have to pay to read, but you get the gist)

And, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000, goes even more directly to my point: The planting and care of woody plants, especially trees.

You may be interested to note that the same source defines arbor itself, and has a great little etymology that may help you untie from the climbing saddle and come on down into the garden for a minute: arbor: A shady resting place in a garden or park, often made of rustic work or latticework on which plants, such as climbing shrubs or vines, are grown. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English erber, from Old French erbier, garden, from erbe, herb. See herb.

Anyhoozle, you cite one source (albeit a reasonable one), and I have here four so far, three of them probably more widely recognized than ISA as authoritative on the meaning of words. Thus, ISA can now, I think, be considered the atypical reference. Wanna wrestle with a moderator next? ; ) Duff 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bats in trees is great, but it's not arboriculture. Someone's invented "sport" is not arboriculture. I'd like to do some serious improvements on this page; if I do in the near future, I will post about it here, and I hope it can be improved on even more by others.--Trees4est (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made mention to amenity trees and how arboriculture is more so focused on the value a tree provides to a landscape rather than the value of it by wood content. Forestry and silviculture is more so aimed at managing for wood production, trees are a crop where as in an urban setting trees are amenity. --Eric Frei (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done some edits to remove things that seemed promotional or superfluous, and tried to distill the page a bit, hopefully it works.--Trees4est (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree surgery[edit]

With apologies to those who may still stubbornly use the terms, tree surgery is not considered an appropriate term to describe arboriculture, nor is tree surgeon an appropriate term to describe an arborist. It's kind of like calling a homemaker a domestic engineer. Other than perhaps noting in both this and the arborist page that these terms are obsolete, I don't see a good reason to use them as if they were synonymous. I'm fixing that here by replacing those terms. Duff (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also known as tree shaping[edit]

I'm going to put it in the lead, since this is a commonly accepted (though none too accurately, nor inclusively, nor professionally used) generic term for the many practices involved in arboriculture (see yellow pages anywhere in the world). There's been a major(?) flap at Talk:arborsculpture, over whether or not the term specifically and generically applies to that craft (which sometimes rises to the level of an art), even going so far as to rename the arborsculpture page to tree shaping, as a more generic term for that practice. A requested page move back to the article's original name did not resolve the matter and editing on that page (and its talk page) has apparently been contentious for years. Many other editors (and I) maintain that tree shaping is a more generic term for this practice, but that it is a wholly inappropriate generic name for that practice. Your comments are warmly welcome, both on its inclusion here and on its appropriateness there. Duff (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Tree shaping from the lead as it is not known as arboriculture, rather is a practice within the field of arboriculture. From googling Tree shaping and arboriculture, it appears to do with arborists pruning and tying trees into shape to suit the garden or landscaping project. Blackash have a chat 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned it, assuming good faith, since arboriculture is commonly known by this phrase, and I am adding a citation needed tag, (which citations I will be very pleased to provide shortly). I am fairly certain that is what was intended, rather than a revert of a good faith edit. Duff (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff you state above that you really can't get references for the use of Tree shaping as Arboriculture. I have been doing research for Tree shaping article. Nowhere have I found where the word tree shaping is used interchangeably in with arboriculture I have found some references which refer to tree shaping as a service offered by arborists. Blackash have a chat 09:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. I made no such statement. As time permits, and as I stated clearly above, I will be very pleased to add citations shortly, particularly since, as you note, your own surely-diligent effort to find such citations has been fruitless. I welcome your effort to bring in more editors and more eyes. Cheers. Duff (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff your quote above since this is a commonly accepted (though none too accurately, nor inclusively, nor professionally used) generic term. You came and placed tree shaping in the lead to help support your POV over in the discussion about the title change on Tree shaping. Claiming COI in no reason not to justify your change, and knowing that you would try to divert the point from the dispute, to being about the editor. With this in mind is why I asked for a 3rd opinion about the dispute of whether or not Tree shaping is a commonly used generic term for Arboriculture or is it a service offered by arborists. Blackash have a chat 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My quote above, which you have quoted, is not in any way equivalent to your statement that, "Duff you state above that you really can't get references for the use of Tree shaping as Arboriculture." Your statement is false and misleading, as is your analysis of my not having justified my change. I justified it clearly in my first note, above, upon posting the change in the first place. I have also agreed that citations are needed, as I stated in my response to you, and even went so far as to add the citation needed tag myself, to encourage other editors to also assist in finding such citations, which seems to me quite reasonable. I am also going to respect the third opinion suggestion by Anaxial below, none of which I disagree with, and hold it out of the article for the time being, until citations are properly added, though please note that the policy on non-BLP articles is "can be removed", not "must be removed immediately". In this case, that was WP:POINTY, since a citation needed tag would have been appropriate also, and darned diplomatic of you. Concerning your point on POV, I have amended my 2nd comment and added a direct note on your talk page concerning this as well, as is more appropriate. Duff (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2 relevant comments clipped from my talk page, User talk:Duff, to here.)

I can't agree that "tree shaping" is another term for arboriculture as that is (as the article lead states) the "cultivation, management, and study" of woody plants. Rather, "tree shaping" is a practice within the field of arboriculture. Presented “tree shaping” as if it's a synonym for arboriculture seems pointy as well as inaccurate. Let's not let our exasperating association with odiously unethical people lead us compromise our own standards of editing. That being said, the term “tree shaping” can absolutely be used as a section heading within articles such as Arboriculture and Arborist. --Griseum (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what both of you are saying, and you may be right. However I submit that while it may be an inaccurate usage, the term is in common usage by common people to describe the general practice of arboriculture. I will also seek reliable citations, and if none are located in a reasonable amount of time, I will go along with placing it as a subheading and describing it accurately instead. It's not a BLP, so there's no crisis. I read WP:POINT, and Griseum, while I think I understand your point, I note the following on that page: "...just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this guideline." I edit in good faith, consistently. Do you sincerely see that piece of editing as an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? I don't see it, but I am prepared to become more enlightened on that. I would put forth that the immediate reversion of my added information, versus adding a citation needed tag, was a far clearer example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but I may be wrong. Duff (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed the itchy bit. Duff (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Blackash have a chat 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I would suggest that, since the use of the term has been disputed, that it should remain out of the article for the time being. Once citations from reliable sources are available, it will, of course, be quite right to put it back in, together with those references. But until then, the general principle that unsourced material can be removed seems a prudent one to use here. The article is not significantly harmed by not mentioning the term, so the correct way to resolve things is to find those citations and include them.—Anaxial (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do, though I feel that a citation needed tag was adequate in a non-BLP article. I agree that the article is not harmed by its omission, though I think it is improved by its inclusion. Duff (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timber arboriculture?[edit]

Recent addition of this section, translated from Italian wikipedia, seems out of place. Does this information not belong in the En wikipedia article on lumber or thereabouts? Duff (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little deeper and this paragraph and list of species information belongs squarely on the page Hardwood timber production. It doesn't discuss arboriculture and gives no sources for the use of the term Timber arboriculture, an oxymoronic construction. I'm going to move it there, although the list appears to contain some softwoods too. That article can probably be moved to a new title, simply Timber production until such time as its content merits splitting. Neither is referenced, so I'll stick a tag on that too. Arboriculture concerns itself with individual trees, which is a key element of what distinguishes it from forestry and lumber related practices.Duff (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced this belongs integrated into any one specific article, but it's a fine list, so maybe saving it here will help it find a home. Hardwood timber management looks like it wants to be merged somewhere too, so moving this there seems premature. Its content is not arboriculture, which deals with individual woody plants and not for timber/lumber. It's more on forestry/timber plantation management, mostly appropriate species for that. Here is the content clipped:

Timber arboriculture[edit]

Timber plantation managementarboriculture is a technical discipline of forestryarboriculture that studies the installation and management of tree plantations for the production of specific timber in the largest quantity possible. These plantations are usually monoculture, operated by farms or forestry companies, using specialised machinery.

The main objective in timber plantation managementarboriculture is the maximisation of woody material, which is harvested completely at the commercially optimal time.

Main cultivated species[edit]

Timber plantations are usually pollarded or coppiced. Here is a list of the most common species used:

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arboriculture. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felling is Tree Care?[edit]

This is a ridiculous insult. Everyone knows that trees are being felled. But to call that 'Tree Care' just don't seem right to me. We could use a different, more proper term. Mr.Baumguard (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arboriculture&oldid=1194747036"