K-Lite Update?

[Stone]

No because most of us are working in low alkalinity solutions with very little NH4.

The problematic MSU/RO and Klite/RO are almost all NO3 for nitrogen rather than NH4

I was thinking more 'in habitat' but that raises the nitrate v ammonium thing again.

 

[gonewild]

Quote Alert! that's Mikes quote not mine Lance.

Opps! a piece of quote code was trying to frame you! I corrected it.

 

[gonewild]

When I read your original post about the bugs, I imagined a tree sitting in the forest at dusk stretching out its branches and saying (in a transalvanian accent) ''Come my little children of the night.....come and feast on my body so that you may go forth and prosper!''

Your close, but the tree actually said that at dawn. People sleep at night and prosper during the day.

 

[gonewild]

I was thinking more 'in habitat' but that raises the nitrate v ammonium thing again.

OK maybe with low K, Ammonium might not be so bad? Let us know how that works out! oke:

 

[Rick]

Well try this table recreated from a paper on leaf litter data from a West Sumatran rain forrest. On average in this forest Ca is about 6 X higher than K and rarely comes close to 50/50 seasonally. In this forest K is usually a bit higher than Mg.

In this forest silicon significantly trumps K and Mg. The leaf litter data for karst rainforest in Malyasia and serpentine forests in South America is similar but not as comprehensive in time frame and nutrients measurerd.

 

[Stone]

Well try this table recreated from a paper on leaf litter data from a West Sumatran rain forrest. On average in this forest Ca is about 6 X higher than K and rarely comes close to 50/50 seasonally. In this forest K is usually a bit higher than Mg.

In this forest silicon significantly trumps K and Mg. The leaf litter data for karst rainforest in Malyasia and serpentine forests in South America is similar but not as comprehensive in time frame and nutrients measurerd.

Sorry Rick, You're right. I must have been thinking Mg to K. (table 2)
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/tro...sta rica pdfs/Wood et al. 2006-Ecosystems.pdf
But look at the figures for K-m (mature leaf) and Ca-m (mature leaf)
for a number of orchids here ( Table 1 (Mg/g) )
http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/3778/1/Zotz_J._Trop_Ecol.pdf

 

[Rick]

The leaf senescence paper is VERY interesting.

Overall if you look at all 20 species (of which 14 are orchids)the overall ratio of K to Ca is only slightly in favor of Ca (50/50 for intent of purpose) in mature leaves. Generally the amount of Mg+Ca (total divalent cation) would certainly push relative K% down more (which is something I included in original reduced K discussions).

Now if you look at total averages in senescent leaves, K is about 1/2 the Ca and the plants in general are reabsorbing about 1/2 of the leaf K as they abort old leaves. While all the Ca and Mg is lost in the old leaf. Since the plant is reabsorbing the K it doesn't need to bring as much new K in from outside the plant. But it will need total replacement of the Ca and Mg.

Now to focus on just the 14 orchid species. 5 of the 14 are close to 50/50 (as mature live leaves) K/Ca once again add the Mg and total divalent cation is ahead of K in mature leaves. Pretty much the same story as the above paragraph.

Now 4 of the species have decided K obviously above Ca or sum Ca+Mg in live leaves. But 3 of the 4 are well known leaf shedders. Especially the Catesetum. This fits a bit better into the "corn" or annual system of grow fast bloom and die strategy. Make big storage bulbs in just a few months and shed the leaves.

Now look at the last 5. Three of the last 5 (2 Epi's and an Oncidium) average Ca to K ratios of 10:1 :wink: One of the Epi's also has the highest Mg concentration so total divalent cation to K is almost 15:1!

The most lopsided K lover (the Gongora)at best has a 2.6:1 K to Ca ratio.

So overall I think the data in this paper also supports the low K (High Ca/Mg) strategy in wild orchids.

Great data Mike!!

 

[Rick]

I actually lost track of a line on that table. It's not the catesetum that has a high k ratio but Caularthron bilamellatum.

The Catesetum is only barely higher Ca than K, but Ca+Mg: K is obviously ahead of K. The deciduous catesetum also reabsorbs a lot of the K back out of its leaves before senescence. Like the Gongora.

The two biggest klinkers in the works are the Caularthron and Epidendrum imatophylum. But these are also associated with ants. So maybe something special about ant plants liking (or having access to) some extra K.

 

[Stone]

Now if you look at total averages in senescent leaves, K is about 1/2 the Ca and the plants in general are reabsorbing about 1/2 of the leaf K as they abort old leaves. While all the Ca and Mg is lost in the old leaf Since the plant is reabsorbing the K it doesn't need to bring as much new K in from outside the plant. But it will need total replacement of the Ca and Mg.

Yes I noticed that. It points an adaptation of epiphytes to favour K over Ca. and the same for P. The notes go on to say that ground dwellers may have more access to these from leaf litter and soil. Leaf litter inputs and decomposition being very low in the canopy. It would be interesting to see data from the actual trees they are growing on.

 

[Rick]

Yes I noticed that. It points an adaptation of epiphytes to favour K over Ca. and the same for P. It would be interesting to see data from the actual trees they are growing on.

Yes the bromiliad physiology paper Ray and I pointed out a ways back shows that epiphytic plants expend considerable effort to collect and sequester (conserve) a rare comoditity (K) in their environment. However just because the plants "favour" K it doesn't make them immune to antagonistic imbalances when the resource is supplied in unlimited amounts.

The whole "kid in the candy store" phenomena. Sugar is definitely "favoured" over more nutritious foods by children. But we are all aware of the human health issues associated with excess sugar consumption.

This brings up the whole argument about looking at nature for answers to GH generated problems again. Your own leaf tissue/litter data shows that epiphytic orchids in the wild do not have K at concentrations and nutrient ratios generally represented in the typical "balanced" fertilizer (and these plants do just fine without fertilizing). However, the MSU fert was developed on leaf tissue data from what was considered quality growing greenhouse plants. Which by looking at the numbers would verify that orchids "in the candy store" will try to suck up as much K as you can give them. And there is no doubt that lots of growers have lots of problems with large numbers of their plants.

Now we cycle back to the question of why we have all these problems with our GH plants while the wild plants are doing just fine. I've already checked off the boxes for temp/light/humidity. So now looking at food.

 

[Stone]

.

However just because the plants "favour" K it doesn't make them immune to antagonistic imbalances when the resource is supplied in unlimited amounts.

Agreed.
Another thing I've noticed when looking at the various habitat nutrient data is that usually B levels are almost always higher than Cu. Sometimes double! But every fertilizer I've looked at has B levels well below Cu. Maybe something to consider when when we are trying balance things.

 

[Rick]

.

Agreed.
Another thing I've noticed when looking at the various habitat nutrient data is that usually B levels are almost always higher than Cu. Sometimes double! But every fertilizer I've looked at has B levels well below Cu. Maybe something to consider when when we are trying balance things.

The K lite fert has Cu at .038 copper and .025 B. That's only a factor of 1.5 so really pretty close. However between most potting mixes and other materials in the fert there are lots of things that complex copper (but not boron) that make it difficult for the plant to utilize. So the little extra amount of copper can compensate for all the things that tie up copper before it even gets into the plant.

 

[Rick]

Some new ideas

I recreated and analyzed the Zotz 2004 for Panamanian epiphytes work that Mike came up with. I think its pretty cool.

Notice the big difference in K usage between orchids that cohabitate with ants and orchids that don't.

Also since the senescing leaves would represent the nutrients actually lost to the plant, those numbers would be more representative of what the plant would actually be looking to reacquire with future growth (rather than the mature leaf values.

 

[Rick]

While looking up the ant association thing for the orchids I thought I'd apply it to the non orchids as well.

As it turns out the Peperonia (which has the most crazy high K and reversed K/Ca ratio) is also one of the most popular plants for aboreal ants to "garden".

Although some Clusia are "gardened", the species uvitana is not listed as such, but apparently is a popular plant for leaf shredder ants to harvest for their subterranean nests.

Some Anthurium are also popular ant garden species, but in literature I could only find A. gracilis as definitively tended by ants (which isn't in this list). It would be interesting to see if A fiedrichsthalii is a popular ant garden species.

So it looks like high K use/tolerance/need is still the domain of domesticated plants whether farmed by humans or ants:wink:

 

[Stone]

I recreated and analyzed the Zotz 2004 for Panamanian epiphytes work that Mike came up with. I think its pretty cool.

Notice the big difference in K usage between orchids that cohabitate with ants and orchids that don't.

Also since the senescing leaves would represent the nutrients actually lost to the plant, those numbers would be more representative of what the plant would actually be looking to reacquire with future growth (rather than the mature leaf values.

Looking at the figures I notice that even at the lowest K concentration (very last line- senesced leaves) that the N to K ratio is around 1:0.8 ( this is the ratio generally recomended for general nursery stock)
If you take the concentrations in organic p/media into consideration and drop the ratio by half (1:0.4), That comes close to what I'm using at the moment.
Also when you look at the huge range of concentrations of nutrients found in plant leaves: (black bars = deficient to just sufficient). But obviously they can be anywhere within the range.

and considering Ca does not seem to be a limiting factor (that is that very little is resorbed into leaves before they are shed), I wonder whether Ca consentrations seen here are actually utilized by the plant?
There has been many trials where optimum Ca consentrations were found to be much lower than these values.
In other words, In your ''Average (orchid species)''
Losses of nutrients in percenages are aprox. N60%;P30%;K55%;Ca80%;Mg95%.
So how much really needs to be replaced for the plant to function?
In another experiment I was reading, P was sprayed onto branches in a rainforest resulting in an explosion of epiphyte growth. This goes along with the data suggesting that P was the most limiting nutrient in epiphyte ecosystem, with K coming in second and N third.
This doesn't mean you can pour on P and expect miracles but that P is at a premium in the canopy and adding a little- in this case- increased growth.
So what am I saying?....Beats me:rollhappy:

 

[Rick]

Looking at the figures I notice that even at the lowest K concentration (very last line- senesced leaves) that the N to K ratio is around 1:0.8 ( this is the ratio generally recomended for general nursery stock)
If you take the concentrations in organic p/media into consideration and drop the ratio by half (1:0.4), That comes close to what I'm using at the moment.
Also when you look at the huge range of concentrations of nutrients found in plant leaves: (black bars = deficient to just sufficient). But obviously they can be anywhere within the range.


In other words, In your ''Average (orchid species)''
Losses of nutrients in percenages are aprox. N60%;P30%;K55%;Ca80%;Mg95%.
So how much really needs to be replaced for the plant to function?

So what am I saying?....Beats me:rollhappy:

I think one of the big points to consider is the differences between the "average orchid species" and some of the individual orchid species. Two of the three epi's, the oncidium, and the encyclia are showing some very low K relative to both N and Ca. Especially pronounced in the senesced leaves.

Could this be the reason why a greenhouse full of different species, experiencing relatively similar physical conditions of light/temp/humidity seem to have such diverse problems in growth for many people? In the bigger Zotz paper he did see that there appeared to be some segregation of species on different trees, but couldn't find any physical habitat issues to account for the limited segregation he was observing.

So how much really needs to be replaced for the plant to function? Well I still know this little old lady in Shelbyville, TN who hasn't used any supplemental feed for her plants in 50 years. Just uses her well water. High in Ca, a little bit of Mg, a trace of P and K. And she has 50 year old plants still functioning.

So starting with that as the bare minimum, How much do they not need?

 

[Stone]

I'd like to get a look at this
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:joh&volume=10&issue=4&article=010

 

[Rick]

I'd like to get a look at this
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:joh&volume=10&issue=4&article=010

Looks like a winner! Just from the abstract, the average Ca to K ratio is almost 3:1!

 

[keithrs]

I just wanted to chime in and say K-Lite has produced the largest, shiny, brightest green leaves I have ever had. Growths are just a little bigger.

I will admit that I use MSU once a month.

 

[Brabantia]

I just wanted to chime in and say K-Lite has produced the largest, shiny, brightest green leaves I have ever had. Growths are just a little bigger.

I will admit that I use MSU once a month.

And ...how many time do you use the K-Lite during a month?