Talk:Quercus agrifolia

Plants Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. An editor suggests the following: a range map if possible

Coast live oak is the more common name. Is there a special reason for calling it "California live oak"? Willmcw 00:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After consulting with others I have changed the article and tree name to Coast live oak. -Willmcw 01:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone cite this reference? "The outer layers of leaves are designed for maximum solar absorption, containing two to three layers of photosynthetic cells. These outer leaves are deemed to be small in size to more efficiently re-radiate the heat gained from solar capture. Shaded leaves are generally broader and thinner, having only a single layer of photosynthetic cells. The convex leaf shape may be useful for interior leaves which depend on capturing reflected light scattered in random directions from the outer canopy." -(M0laria (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quercus agrifolia. 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, 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: 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) 23:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Defoliation[edit]

The referenced source does not contain a notice like "The trees recover, and botanists speculate that the species provide mutual benefit, possibly in the form of fertilizer for the oak." The original sentences are "The idea that a species of insect can cohabit with a tree host for millions of years, adapting slowly so that today it can live only on that host, suggests that there may be a benefit to the tree. There may be a third party involved, maybe a bird or a soil organism or something else." Could any native speaker form a correct summary of that, please? Regards --Vorwald (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo under "Habitat and ecology"[edit]

I'm a new editor and am hesitant to make a big edit without getting some feedback first.

I am 90% certain that the tree pictured in the "Habitat and ecology" section is NOT Q. agrifolia. I suspect it is actually Q. douglasii (although I've read that the two can hybridize so who knows). Note the bluish leaves and especially the whitish-gray bark that separates into long, thin vertically-oriented scales (see photos here and description here). Q. agrifolia has generally smooth bark with "ridges rounded" (same sources). I'm tempted to remove the photo but would like to see if anyone has a different opinion before I take that leap.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a month with no reply, I went ahead and replaced the photo. The old one was almost certainly blue oak. This one is definitely coast live oak, and I think it gives a good idea of the tree's general shape, habitat, trunk form, and bark texture. Please revert if this is inappropriate.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holm oak[edit]

In disambiguating Holm oak, I have found a number of uses of the term clearly referring to this species, and I have found this blog post indicating that it is sometimes referred to by this name. Is there a more formal source that can be used in this article for this designation? Technically, it should not be on the disambiguation page unless this is mentioned in the article, but I would prefer to have a proper source supporting that. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation[edit]

I have a 45 year old one I planted in my back yard 35 years ago. I pulled it out of the ground at El. 5000 ft. in the Laguna Mountains of San Diego County. We live at El. 600 feet. It is a very healthy very cool tree about as broad as it is tall. Lrayvick (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]