wild plants/cultivated plants

[gonewild]

Do you really think fert regime can explain all the difference between cultivated plants and wild ones?

No. Not the fertilizer regime..but the nutritional requirement regime is where the unknown differences are and the best place now to look for differences.

Going backwards and thinking it is related to light, temperature, humidity, media, ect. is not where the answer is at. All of those various variables have been tested to death.

Fertilizer strength and frequency has been tested so much there really is not anything new to try.

Fertilizer content is the open ended direction to look. Pretty much all of the nutrient research and trials have been done trying to find which nutrients to INCREASE to get the plants to grow FASTER. Until Rick promoted the low potassium concept no one ever gave it a thought to look at nutrient "in-tolerance" as far as the ratios between nutrients. Minor variations in the ratios were promoted basically to create new formulas to market.

Because horticulture science has up until now been based on production (bigger, faster) we all have been tuned in to think that the faster and bigger our plants grow means they are healthier and will live longer. The question is is there such a thing as plant obesity? There is in all other life forms.

Now we have a reason to consider that less of some "fattening" nutrients may improve our plants health. As a result of improved health perhaps the plants will grow bigger and faster with less nutrients.

The published material with the K-lite concept seems to indicate that AT LEAST potassium in Nature is at lower levels.

There are only a few conditions that we can control in an orchid collection. The easiest to control is fertilizer, why not challenge the standard and look for improvement by adjusting the fertilizer to more closely mimic Nature than what the chemicals companies have pushed?

 

[gonewild]

I have an old book written in the 50's which suggests paphs should not be fed at all and do better with fresh mix than feeding every couple of years.

Do you have any idea what was available in the 50's to use to fertilizer potted orchid plants? What does youR book recommend to use as fertilizer?

In those days of course they potted in fern roots, leafmold etc not sterile pine bark. I have put a few barbata types into treefern/sphagnum and a little bark amonth ago and given only plain water almost every day. They certainly are not ''starving'' right now. Another old book which recommends osmunda and sphag suggests feeding a little only in the second year! Its also important to remember their plants were all collected wild ones in those days, and usually only the biggest and the best were kept.

Also in the 50's very few people could keep Paps alive, so using their care reference might not be a good base. Most people thought that Paphs were terrestrial so the recommendation was to grow in "loose soil" (dirt).

 

[Rick]

The 50's is also when the "better living through chemistry" started to really become the fashion.

It may have ushered in a renaissance of better understanding and growing for agriculture, but I think the non crop areas have miss applied a significant portion of that knowledge.

Much of what I put together on the low K theory was based on not very recent research in the understanding of crop plants.

Another part was taking the same agricultural approaches to calculating K need for crop plants and applying it to the in situ leaf tissue ecological bio-availability data.

When I talk to agri folks at the county extension agency they laugh at hobby orchid growers who just apply rote fertilizer without actually accounting for plant needs.

 

[Trithor]

I think that if we grew only one or two (well matched for requirements) species, we would be able to tweek our growing environment to replicate wild conditions and get the results we all would love to get. However most of us grow a varied collection. I think it is important to realise what a vast geographical area paphs actually come from, and just how varied that area is climatically and environmentally. We tend to lump them into a few cultural groups, but the truth is that not only are there huge differences in requirements from one species to the next, but also within the species from one locality to the next. Most paphs are very specific in their requirements. Anyone who has spent a bit of time in the various habitats will tell you how localised populations are. You find a colony growing in a specific area, then nothing for large distances, then when conditions are just right, you find another colony. The 'Goldilocks' principle!

 

[Stone]

I think that if we grew only one or two (well matched for requirements) species, we would be able to tweek our growing environment to replicate wild conditions and get the results we all would love to get. However most of us grow a varied collection. I think it is important to realise what a vast geographical area paphs actually come from, and just how varied that area is climatically and environmentally. We tend to lump them into a few cultural groups, but the truth is that not only are there huge differences in requirements from one species to the next, but also within the species from one locality to the next. Most paphs are very specific in their requirements. Anyone who has spent a bit of time in the various habitats will tell you how localised populations are. You find a colony growing in a specific area, then nothing for large distances, then when conditions are just right, you find another colony. The 'Goldilocks' principle!

All true but a lot of the problems like slow growth, small leaves, slow to mature, bad roots etc is very generalized throught most collections around the world. Some species have always been quite easy to grow and achieve great results with eg insigne, villosum etc. And that's another point difficult to understand. Why are some so easy and others (most) very exacting with what they want when they have evolved in -more or less- the same type of ecology? In other words why can you feed the crap out of insigne with no ill effect (high K or High EC or whatever) but not some other similar plant?
Pleione is another good example. They come from similar places in Southern China to some paphs, perhaps higher up and very easy to grow. No root loss etc etc and fed ''normal'' fertilizer formulations. Surley they are subject to the same kind of nutrient load as other plants from the region. It's something more than just low K or low EC.

 

[Stone]

The leaf litter study did include TE's, but as for majors, K was much less than Ca and N.

Another thing to consider with regard to TE, is that like K, they accumulate in potting materials. And the toxicity of trace metals is higher than for the major nutrients. Copper is a very toxic material to plants (but absolutely critical in micro amounts). Is easy to find literature in the waste treatment area that show how you can sequester toxic metals with peat moss, coffee grounds, and activated carbon (charcoal). So once again don't look for what you need to add, but what you need to wash away.

Could you give a link to it Rick...I can't seem to find it

 

[Stone]

Do you have any idea what was available in the 50's to use to fertilizer potted orchid plants? What does youR book recommend to use as fertilizer?

Cow manure steeped in water until clear.
My point was that they really didn't feed much at all in the first year.

Also in the 50's very few people could keep Paps alive, so using their care reference might not be a good base. Most people thought that Paphs were terrestrial so the recommendation was to grow in "loose soil" (dirt).

The recommendation in this book is for either fern root or ''bush bark''

 

[Trithor]

The easier to grow species are the more widely spread in nature?

 

[annab]

first of all I would say that this is an fascinating argument and my thought about is this: I love Paphiopedilum species also because are so hard to grow,so when they bloom I will be so happy and proud of me ,much more if flower my easy geraniums. and I think that if we discover the way for obtain fast grow a lot of magical attraction that surround this kind of plant probably go away.in the final is a challenge.
If so far nobody have found the secret for boost and obtain an easy grow is because the secret maybe not exists ,and for this that the range from ables,good grower and more of a good grower are not so marked .maybe the only things that brings an high benefit comes from having a good habitat and good plant, and then the rest is probably public domain. adding at all of this also that maybe everyone have obviously some tiny secret that damn never tell us or simply at the plants like some kind of home.
In nature only strong seeds germ,It's a very selective process a true miracle ,is very hard to replicate all the factors that mother nature to provide and maybe is for this that we can see big plant with big leaf, but I would like to ask a question : how many seed and plant in nature die and never became a big and strong plant? anyway rarely plant that live in vase became like plant that live in the field My acer on my balcony is big and strong but might never become like acer that stay in the street .
Anna

 

[Erythrone]

In nature only strong seeds germ,It's a very selective process a true miracle ,is very hard to replicate all the factors that mother nature to provide and maybe is for this that we can see big plant with big leaf, but I would like to ask a question : how many seed and plant in nature die and never became a big and strong plant? anyway rarely plant that live in vase became like plant that live in the field My acer on my balcony is big and strong but might never become like acer that stay in the street .
Anna

oke:oke:

 

[polyantha]

Xavier pointed to importance of shade and minimal light. I wuold argue with this theory seeing videos about plants habitat. I remember a video about druyrii, I saw a very large mutligrowth plant with huge staight leaves and full of blooms, it was an absolutely open area exposed to full tropical Sun-light surrounded by burned out grass!!!

Another I can remeber is a multigrowth roth growing on the top of a rock, there were no shading trees at all.

Bellatulums and godefroyaes are often living in open rocks near the sea cost.

I know the video and the picture of roth I know too. But you cannot get a general rule what light is best for all Paph species. Roth is not that rare in nature and the places where they grow are very different. The roth on the pic you mean (http://www.pbase.com/rogiervanvugt/image/142283203/original.jpg) has a very yellowish flower color like many of the originally collected roths we see in germany. The leaves have the color of a stonei. But there are also other roths like the ones Orchids and More sold some years ago with massive flower sizes (35cm) on plants as big as an average toperii with very dark green leaves. These come from a colony that grows in heavy shade as I was told. We are talking about differences within a species here.
Another example: anitum. These are growing in shade too. I really had some trouble to grow them but since I give them more shade than any other paph in my collection, the leaves get bigger and the roots grow much better. And I kept them as wet as possible from the beginning. They really need it. This might be the problem of so many anitums dying in cutivation. They slowly die instead of getting the chance to clump and grow faster because of the increased number of growths.

 

[dodidoki]

I know the video and the picture of roth I know too. But you cannot get a general rule what light is best for all Paph species. Roth is not that rare in nature and the places where they grow are very different. The roth on the pic you mean (http://www.pbase.com/rogiervanvugt/image/142283203/original.jpg) has a very yellowish flower color like many of the originally collected roths we see in germany. The leaves have the color of a stonei. But there are also other roths like the ones Orchids and More sold some years ago with massive flower sizes (35cm) on plants as big as an average toperii with very dark green leaves. These come from a colony that grows in heavy shade as I was told. We are talking about differences within a species here.
Another example: anitum. These are growing in shade too. I really had some trouble to grow them but since I give them more shade than any other paph in my collection, the leaves get bigger and the roots grow much better. And I kept them as wet as possible from the beginning. They really need it. This might be the problem of so many anitums dying in cutivation. They slowly die instead of getting the chance to clump and grow faster because of the increased number of growths.

Okay, it is interesting point to talk about light.
1.) How much light do paphs need. ( eg. barbatas, roth. , stonei, anitum etc.)
2.) How do you estimate appropriate light intensity?
3.) What kind of light do you use for growing paphs?( eg. 4000 lux green is equal zero for a plant, but 4000 lux red-blue light means 100% useful for plants, but both of light intensity are the same)
4.) What kind of light meter do you use? ( eg. mine measures intensity mostly betveen 550-600 nm,(green-yellow) I tried, if I put it under red-blue led growing lamp, it measures almost zero light intensity)

So I wait for tips: how do you estimate appropriate light intensity for your plants?

 

[naoki]

Okay, it is interesting point to talk about light.
1.) How much light do paphs need. ( eg. barbatas, roth. , stonei, anitum etc.)
2.) How do you estimate appropriate light intensity?
3.) What kind of light do you use for growing paphs?( eg. 4000 lux green is equal zero for a plant, but 4000 lux red-blue light means 100% useful for plants, but both of light intensity are the same)
4.) What kind of light meter do you use? ( eg. mine measures intensity mostly betveen 550-600 nm,(green-yellow) I tried, if I put it under red-blue led growing lamp, it measures almost zero light intensity)

So I wait for tips: how do you estimate appropriate light intensity for your plants?

It is a good start to understand this basic of light intensity for human eye vs for plant photosynthesis (sorry if this is too basic), and this explains it in simple English:
http://www.gpnmag.com/sites/default/files/16_TechnicallySpeaking_GPN0913 FINAL.pdf

lux (and footcandle) isn't a good way to compare the light with different spectra as you found out. Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) is a bit more useful measure (unit: micro moles per square meter per second). You need a PAR meter. Mine is a low-end (Apogee), so it is not great to measure LED whose wavelength is close to 700nm. Li-Cor unit seems to be one of the better ones, but a little bit expensive (about $1000).

Here is a quantum (PAR) sensor:
http://www.licor.com/env/products/light/quantum_sensors/
Or a quantum (PAR) light meter:
http://www.licor.com/env/products/light/light_meter.html

But these are probably overkill for most hobbyists, though.

I'm pretty sure that the limiting factor in my environment is photosynthesis (light, water and air humidity) and not the other mineral nutrients since I'm using 100% artificial light. I started with fluorescent light, but I'm using R+B LED, warm white house-hold bulbs and COB LED more recently. Most of the time, I don't bring out the PAR meter, though (I just try to put the light close to the plants without burning them).

Here is a couple other links related to the issues of artificial light:
http://www.orchidboard.com/community/growing-under-lights/71609-led-related-links.html

One of the other related points (related to the original question) is that even if you give the same amount of PAR, shape of plants can be influenced by the different spectra (e.g. red-biased vs blue-biased).

 

[Stone]

Okay, it is interesting point to talk about light.
1.) How much light do paphs need. ( eg. barbatas, roth. , stonei, anitum etc.)
2.) How do you estimate appropriate light intensity?
3.) What kind of light do you use for growing paphs?( eg. 4000 lux green is equal zero for a plant, but 4000 lux red-blue light means 100% useful for plants, but both of light intensity are the same)
4.) What kind of light meter do you use? ( eg. mine measures intensity mostly betveen 550-600 nm,(green-yellow) I tried, if I put it under red-blue led growing lamp, it measures almost zero light intensity)

So I wait for tips: how do you estimate appropriate light intensity for your plants?

No one really knows the optimum light level. First it s probably different for most species and second, in the habitat you see the same species growing in sun or shade because that is where the seed settled. But the ones in full sun or very bright seem to be more stunted, smaller or bleached but they still grow and produce flowers. So the appropriate light level is really based on how you prefer the plants to look. I've always grown epiphytic orchids which prefer or even need strong light. But I have had to re-learn the correct brightness for paphs and phalaenopsis too for that matter. Over my g/house I have 1 layer of 70% cream coloured shade cloth and the glasshouse runs east-west with a longer slope on the north face (southern hemisphere) to catch more winter sun. In mid summer which is now, the sun is overhead and behind the apex of the roof so it hits the shorter side of the roof with a steep slope so the light is less intense than later in the year. All my paphs are at the back of the g/house where there is more shade but I STILL had to put up another 50% shade over them and they could probably take even more. I think the best way to determine light is to look for dark green leaves especially on the barbata types. I think where my cattleyas are on the north side is too bright now even for philippinense!, but exul is there.

 

[dodidoki]

Thanks, I checked:
I have only lux meter.
I measured a conventional 40W wolfram bulb from 40 cm ( it works about with 8% efficiency, so light emission is about 3W white light): 700 lux.
15 W red-blue led lamp from similar distance: 600 lux.( it has about 12W light emission efficiency, but my meter is less sensitive for this spectral range)
So eg. a barbatum likes about 2000-2500 lux ( I think it is measured in forest, where it lives, so it is white light). Question: is this 600 luw R/B Led enough for this plant from 40 cm?

 

[naoki]

This is a bit going off-topic, but are you really reading lux, and not fc? There are lots of variation among R+B LED fixtures (ratio of R:B, which type of diodes, lens angle etc), but when I measure my old, crappy 28W (actual energy consumption), I get 4-500 fc (=4-5000lux) at 30cm or so. Typical phal species (e.g. P. equestris, P. violaceae) grow/flower well at this intensity (probably P. barbatum would be happier with a bit more than or similar to these Phals). The one I measured is Sunshine systems Growpanel 45 (R:B=9:5 with old 10mm DIP diodes, about 0.5W max capacity each x 112 diodes), which I recommend everyone to avoid (I have to keep replacing dead blue diodes).

Does P. barbatum really get only 2000-2500lux (=185-232fc) in nature? That sounds really, really dim.

As Mike noted, plants in higher light SHOULD produce smaller leaves (which may be called "stunted", but it could be an adaptive response). Under high light, photosynthesis can occur in the lower layers of cells (mesophylls). Under low light, plants try to increase leaf surface area to capture more light (possibly by reducing the leaf thickness). Also, there is a correlation between high light and high temp (lower relative humidity). This means that plants want to reduce the surface area to minimize water loss (smaller, thicker leaves, which may be what we are observing under the cultivation vs wild setting of paphs). This is probably too basic, but I think that the quantity and quality of light is a part of the answers to the original question (morphological difference between wild vs cultivated paphs).

 

[dodidoki]

You have right, I remembered wrong, barbatas require 5000-7000 lux.
My led light intensity from 30 cm is 1100 lux ( 15 W, 2/3 B/R ratio) , (600 lux from 40cm).

I measured lux. But I don't want to go off, so I open a new thread to make clear about light requirements of slippers. Many thanks for useful infos!

 

[paphioboy]

Couple of threads I posted previously showing several barbata and Thai species in situ.. You can roughly gauge how much sunlight is reaching the paphs from the photos..

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28510&highlight=situ
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30797&highlight=situ

 

[Rick]

But the ones in full sun or very bright seem to be more stunted, smaller or bleached but they still grow and produce flowers. So the appropriate light level is really based on how you prefer the plants to look. , but exul is there.

However, reducing K to my exul (which I've had since 2002) produced leaves at least 20% (up to 40%) bigger in the exact same bright spot in my GH.

Also I would say that these bigger leaves are if anything somewhat darker than for the previous 9 years the plant's been in my collection too.

I'm not sure how much bigger the plant can get if I put it into a darker place in the GH, but compared to the show plants that Poozcard was posting, it was pretty close to maxed out.

 

[Rick]

All true but a lot of the problems like slow growth, small leaves, slow to mature, bad roots etc is very generalized throught most collections around the world. Some species have always been quite easy to grow and achieve great results with eg insigne, villosum etc. And that's another point difficult to understand. Why are some so easy and others (most) very exacting with what they want when they have evolved in -more or less- the same type of ecology? In other words why can you feed the crap out of insigne with no ill effect (high K or High EC or whatever) but not some other similar plant?

From a toxicologist stdpt that's not that amazing. Tolerance can vary drastically from species to species (in the lab) but has no reflection of physiological "need" or ecological condition.

Using K as an example, the 96-hour LC50 for freshwater mussels is around 25ppm, for the water flea C. dubia, it is over 100ppm, and for the midge Chironomus up to 2000ppm.

In nature you rarely see K in rivers greater than 15ppm, and if habitat is appropriate you can find all three species in the same river. So just because Midges can handle crazy amounts of K acutely in the lab doesn't mean its good or necessary for them.

Should also note that although the short term LC50 K for midges is 2000ppm, they will fail to grow and metamorph at concentrations higher than ~ 100ppm. Also mussels exposed to K at much higher than 15ppm will frequently be stunted or die after several months at that concentration.

So toxicity 101 looks at both the concentration AND duration of exposure to determine dose. Typically our mounted plants and pots of fresh coarse media have very short exposures compared to pots of very water retentive media.