Talk:Taproot

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.

Soil Mid‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Taproot is within the scope of WikiProject Soil, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.SoilWikipedia:WikiProject SoilTemplate:WikiProject SoilSoil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

new age

In the part of the disambiguation paragraph that talks about Michael Hedges, the album Taproot was described as nu age. I think this should be NEW age, and changed the link accordingly. NeilDespres 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)taprootshave tiny hairs that maximize the water and minerals.[reply]

Secondary Roots vs. Terciary Roots

Secondary Roots create more secondary roots? Is this accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.49.19 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Trees?

The German wikipedia cites pines as an example of plants with taproots. Biology texts there also separate trees into two groups: those with tap roots (pfahlwurzler) and those with a mostly spread-out root system (Flachwurzler) . The section on trees here seems to disagree. Whatsup? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? We hardly have a stub for an article here, but our info on trees does not contradict anything you say. Hardyplants (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over 100% ??

Development: "well over 100% of the roots are in the top 50 cm of soil."

This does not sound right. Does anybody know if it is a typo, or what the source is? PRR (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]