# Longevity / Life Expectancy



## Ray (Aug 19, 2012)

There was a discussion going on over at the Orchid Source concerning whether orchids have a finite life span, like animals do.

It originated with a comment about "...some orchids (phals, paphs mainly) that I have had for 15 years and more have been languishing and slowly dying. Nothing has changed in culture, etc., annual repotting in same medium they previously thrived in, same location in windows, no bugs, fungi that I can detect, but nothing I do keeps them alive. They start looking sort of hang-dog, then I check the roots, no rot, but no growth, then the leaves look tuckered out, then, weeks later, poof. Gone."

I immediately thought of potassium accumulation, but others brought up stuff like "free radicals" (with which I tend to disagree, considering natural leaf senescence) and the like.

This forum has a lot of knowledgeable folks participating, so I'd like to hear some thoughts on the subject here.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Shiva (Aug 19, 2012)

My phals have long to very long dying lifespan. They have now been banished from my orchid kingdom.:sob:


----------



## John M (Aug 19, 2012)

My belief is that Orchids (at least most of them), really don't have a set lifespan. If they receive the proper care and nutrients, they'll live forever. Monopodials are continually renewing themselves by growing at the top and dying off at the bottom. Sympodial orchids continually renew themselves by producing new psuedobulbs or leaf fans next to the old ones. What limits their lifespan in nature is where they grow and the changes that happen to their local environment. Some may die when one of those "once every hundred years" extreme weather patterns comes along; or when the tree that they are growing on is knocked down in a storm; or when the rocks they are growing on becomes too shaded by nearby growth (or the rocks get too much sun and overheat because nearby growth that used to shade the rocks has gone); or when the ground they are growing in becomes too choked with grasses and other more vigorous plants; or when something eats all or part of the orchid, introducing an easy access for bacteria or fungal disease.

In our care, where the natural evolution and changes in their local environment isn't a factor, and if they receive the proper care that they need for long-term good health, they should live forever, in theory; but, our care must be absolutely correct and consistent, more consistent than they would ever get outdoors in the wild. However, there's a lot we don't all know. Recently, we've become aware of the tendency for us all to overfeed our orchids potassium and the detrimental effect of doing that. Many of us have adjusted our growing and seen impressive improvements in our plants. So now, in this regard, we are another step closer to keeping our plants alive forever.

I think the plants that people own and which grow well for a while and then languish would do well to be repotted more often. I believe that the main problem with captive grown plants doing this is a build-up of someting toxic in the medium, like potassium. Of course, if you know the plant is getting too much potassium, you can also fix that problem easily enough, too. Sometimes, as with growing in sphagnum moss, the potting medium will go "sour". In these cases, the plant may need repotting every 6 or 8 months. If you don't repot to remove the newly formed toxic conditions at the roots, the plant will eventually die; but, not from old age, it will die from sickness caused by a poor environment. If we get the conditions right (Temp, humidity, water freqency, water quality, feeding, water and potting medium pH, etc.), the plants should never die. I'm sure that most everyone who's been in orchids for a while knows of cases where a small division was taken from a big mother plant and sold or given to someone else. Later on, it's learned that the big mother plant has not done well and is going down hill; while the owner of the small division can show you a huge, vigorous happy plant. The owner of the original mother plant might decide to explain the downturn of their plant as the result of old age; but, if that were the case, then the new owner of the small division should be having similar results; yet, they have a fantastic, healthy, vigorous plant instead. That's because their plant is in fresh medium; or because their growing practices are different and better than those of the original owner.

I have a Shamrock plant that has been in my family since 1886. When my Great Grandmother, Catherine Charlton was a young woman, she got it on a trip to Northern Ireland. It changed hands many times since then. Back in the 1980's when my last relative in England died, part of her estate included this "house plant". As a child, I'd heard about this plant; so, I made arrangements to get it inspected and documented and sent over to me in Canada. I've had times when I cared for it very well and it flourished....and times when I neglected it and it didn't do so well; so, it looked like it didn't have long to live. But, it always came right back when I gave it what it needed again. They're pretty easy to grow, so there was nothing difficult to do; I just had to actually do it. All it needs is fresh soil now and then and water and food. It's not particular about temperature or light, etc. It grows and propagates vegetatively both in a monopodial and a sympodial way. So, it's also continuously renewing itself and it's shown that as long as it gets what it needs, it can go on forever....well, to this point at least 125 years.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 19, 2012)

I have a few paphs that are divisions of plants that are over fifty years old. I also have o e paph, paph. Morganiae that is a hybrid of stonei x superbiens, it is from a local botanical garden. As far as records go back in that garden you can only tell this plants was brought into the collection before 1900. Over 100 years. I agree with John. I think something must of changed in culture. Or has been alightly wrong for a long time. Not enough to cause immediate alarm, but enough to stress the plants till they slowly die. A toxic build up or a slight deficiency.


----------



## Ghosthunt64 (Aug 19, 2012)

Could the lack of a rest period?


----------



## eggshells (Aug 19, 2012)

I have read that psygmorchis pusilla has a shelf life. I have always thought that regarding paphs or other sympodial orchids that one growth, pseudobulb or cane can be considered an individual plant and once that single growth die, then it can be considered that its life span for that particular growth is over. I am not sure about monopodial though.


----------



## jtrmd (Aug 19, 2012)

They will live until you kill them!


----------



## Ray (Aug 19, 2012)

jtrmd said:


> They will live until you kill them!



OK...So they ALL have a finite life. :rollhappy:


----------



## gonewild (Aug 19, 2012)

eggshells said:


> I have read that psygmorchis pusilla has a shelf life. I have always thought that regarding paphs or other sympodial orchids that one growth, pseudobulb or cane can be considered an individual plant and once that single growth die, then it can be considered that its life span for that particular growth is over. I am not sure about monopodial though.



About orchids but not all plants in general....

Old plant tissue "dies" as it is replaced by new tissue.
But the old tissue does not actually die as it is not an individual. The individual plant continues to exist and live onward.

When a leaf falls off of a plant does the leaf die? No not really because it was never alive in the sense that it was a "whole" being. It was a part of a plant just like your hair. The plant tissues that fall off may decay but they don't "die"
A single growth on an orchid "decays" as a new growth replaces it but it does not "die" since it leaves important parts behind that are still part of the new growth.... roots, rhizomes, ect.

There is nothing to indicate an orchid ever dies of old age and certainly not at a young 15 or 20 years. But when you introduce non natural factors like hybrids and artificial culture all the rules can change. Some orchids may die of old age due to specific individual genetics but that is something impossible to determine.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Aug 19, 2012)

Just ask Old Tjikko, she won't lie.

The mysteries of life are not for us to possess, but rather to have the pleasure of experiencing. Am I just a big colony of cells that functions for a time only to finally fail at some point? Or is my being part of a larger whole called "humanity" and once it fails then I am gone? Would my ever regenerating skin cells growing on in some laboratory reminisce about their lost brethren? 

15 years on a windowsill doesn't sound that long to me. I'm guessing something else pushed those guys over the edge. I'm glad I don't live on a windowsill


----------



## cnycharles (Aug 19, 2012)

I think in some cases some orchids that don't specifically show viruses or other pathogens may just eventually turn boots-up. My plants more specifically phals, that are in smaller pots do fine until they start to grow taller out of the pot, and then I put them in a larger pot and try to accommodate the roots to the new situation, and often it doesn't work. So, there are factors that can cause a decline of a plant based on a change of situation, or a buildup of a pathogen or other internal bad things

also, at least when concerning hybridized phals and other mass produced orchids, we select often for very fast growing plants. those that are produced in nurseries are often pushed to the limit so that a ton of flowers come out. and also often we suggest to people that they keep trimming the flower spike so that more flowers keep coming out. without a rest, like someone mentioned above, the plants may just give out (like most of my albescens phal equestris which seem to flower themselves into permanent submission  )


----------



## Stone (Aug 19, 2012)

You can look at it in this simple way: The orchids we grow are actually clones of themselves. Therefore they cannot die of old age as they are only a few years old at any one time.
Eg. A tree is a single organism, it will eventually die in 100 or 1000 years because it ages and everything which ages must die due to the built in entropy. If you take a cutting from that tree, you have have a clone but an individual organism which is in fact only a couple of years old.
Thats what happens every time we divide an orchid.
A phalaenopsis is a good example. 10 years is considered old and it will eventually die out unless it divides or throws a kieki.


----------



## emydura (Aug 19, 2012)

Stone said:


> You can look at it in this simple way: The orchids we grow are actually clones of themselves. Therefore they cannot die of old age as they are only a few years old at any one time.
> Eg. A tree is a single organism, it will eventually die in 100 or 1000 years because it ages and everything which ages must die due to the built in entropy. If you take a cutting from that tree, you have have a clone but an individual organism which is in fact only a couple of years old.
> Thats what happens every time we divide an orchid.
> A phalaenopsis is a good example. 10 years is considered old and it will eventually die out unless it divides or throws a kieki.




I read a while back about how they are now finding that cuttings of famous Callistemon hybrid clones that were created in the 1920's are showing much less vigour than they use to. They concluded that when you take a cutting of a plant, the new cutting has not been rejuvenated. It is still a plant from the 1920's and hence over time the plant fades away. Maybe orchids are the same. You can keep dividing them etc. but over time the genotype ages.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Aug 19, 2012)

*Let's git scientific*



emydura said:


> You can keep dividing them etc. but over time the genotype ages.



I remember back in the day when the idea of "programmed aging" was all the rage. Folks were actually trying to find the "death gene sequence", the one that tells the organism to shut down. Never been found and likely won't ever be.

Interesting though, from a pure scientific point of view, about animal cells and cloning is this comment a friend of mine made: 

_"This is also the way animal cell lines are maintained - there are lines that go back to the 1970s that are pure (nonmutated) clones using this methodology. You make the explant, expand it for 4-5 generations and freeze several hundred or several thousand vials, pulling them out when needed. So there are only a few generations (mutation usually does not show up until more than 15 generations pass) even when the material is used 20 years later. 15 is an interesting number and is the same for ALL animals and ALL tissues. The teleomere in animal cells (and plant cells) loses material with each generation and becomes incompetent after 15 generations. There are a number of companies working on inhibitors of enzymes that shorten the teleomere to enable making animals - and people - "immortal." There are now 10 year old mice (they usually live less than 18 months). Hmmmm...........

The 15 number was found years ago and no matter what animal you take, if you follow new cell generation from birth, when 15 is reached the cells cannot divide again and the animal dies (the main way that cancer is generated is through enzyme mutation that ultimately stops teleomere degradation."_

So....


----------



## gonewild (Aug 19, 2012)

Stone said:


> A phalaenopsis is a good example. 10 years is considered old and it will eventually die out unless it divides or throws a kieki.



That is environmental and not death of old age. If it were then all Phalaenopsis closely related to that individual would die in a similar time span.


----------



## naoki (Aug 20, 2012)

One of the hypothesis to explain "why sex" (this is a big unsolved question in science) is the Red Queen Hypothesis. One of the related idea is that if you live long, there is more chance of encountering some deadly disease. So old plants could have some bugs, which human have not discovered yet?

Alternatively, could it be related to telomere (ends of chromosome)? Shortening of telomeres is related to aging in animals. Ends become shorter for each replication, but for the germ line cells, telomerase can repair them (in animals). Some cancer is related to screw-ups in telomere, I believe. Cancer cells are basically immortal cells whose programmed cell death mechanisms are screwed up. I'm not an expert in this field, but quick search seems to indicate that this is also important in plants although plant telomere biology isn't as well understand as the counterpart in the animals. I did a quick read, so I might be completely off. Here is some info about telomeres in plants.

http://www.plantcell.org/content/16/4/794.full


----------



## naoki (Aug 20, 2012)

But this probably doesn't make sense if telomerase is active in meristem (plant equivalent of germ line cells).


----------



## NYEric (Aug 20, 2012)

I have seen orchids I was told were hundreds of years old. Theoretially, a plant could continue to produce growths, bulbs, etc., forever if the conditions were right.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Aug 20, 2012)

naoki said:


> Alternatively, could it be related to telomere (ends of chromosome)? Shortening of telomeres is related to aging in animals.



Well, that idea is itself dying a slow death. The correlation between telomere length, shorting and aging is in trouble. One of the longest lived mammals (by size) is the Naked Mole Rat and it has the shortest telomeres. These short telomeres make it almost totally resistant to cancer. Cancer accounts for nearly ~0% of human deaths today (100 years ago when the average age was 30 odd, it accounted for only ~25%). In the fish I work with (Nothobranchius furzeri) there is also no correlation between telomere shortening and lifespan. 

The idea of a finite lifespan which is underpinned by genetics has not vanished. It is integral to what is the most successful theory explaining aging: the Reliability Theory of aging.

I have observed Disa uniflora in the wild and the colonies seem to have a lifespan. I have watched one colony peak and then decline. What is interesting is that on the outskirts of the colony there are still growths and these now seem to be in the "peaking" phase of growth. I do think that something does happen to a long established colony over time which could be miscontrewed as "aging". I had a walk though Wikipediea from the Old Tjikko link and it is interesting to see how many of the oldest plants have survived by clonal replication out, away from, the central growth. Perhaps the trick with old plant is to keep transplanting them and multiplying them?

I do think that our plants can have finite lives. Where there is no selection for long life, and instead for rapid multiplication, then the genes for long life are lost from the population. So we have plants like Paph. godefroyae which in the wild quickly mature and set seed and rarely last long in captivity. Whether this is aging or merely a product of their unsuitability to home growing is hard to say. Some clones do live a very long time... but I doubt there are any clones which have lived as long as many of the Paph insigne clones which have been going for generations.

The question of whether plants "age" is an interesting one which is hard to study. Are daisies intrinsically short lived, or is it just an artifact of seasonal growth?


----------



## Shiva (Aug 20, 2012)

Everything dies eventually. Plants in general live their life on scales of longevity different from humans. An annual plant will die in the fall and set seeds for a new generation. A Bristlecone Pine may live for thousands of years, but it will die too. I think the oldest ones are six to seven thousand years old. Quite a feat, but where are the 20 000 year old bristlecone pines? I had a seven foot diameter tree in front of my house when I moved in and never thought I would be the one to hire people to cut it down. It was rotten from the inside out and it would have fallen on its own one day. I just didn't want it to fall on a passing school bus full of children. Every plant and animal has a different lifespan and it's the same with orchids. Many orchid books have old drawings and color plates of clones that are no more. Every species live on the edge, requiring specific conditions to thrive. A change of climate, a forest fire, the loss of a pollinator may do them in. In short, counting longevity in human years will only show that some species won't live as long while others will live longer. And that's that!


----------



## bullsie (Aug 20, 2012)

Shiva said:


> Everything dies eventually. Plants in general live their life on scales of longevity different from humans. An annual plant will die in the fall and set seeds for a new generation. A Bristlecone Pine may live for thousands of years, but it will die too. I think the oldest ones are six to seven thousand years old. Quite a feat, but where are the 20 000 year old bristlecone pines? I had a seven foot diameter tree in front of my house when I moved in and never thought I would be the one to hire people to cut it down. It was rotten from the inside out and it would have fallen on its own one day. I just didn't want it to fall on a passing school bus full of children. Every plant and animal has a different lifespan and it's the same with orchids. Many orchid books have old drawings and color plates of clones that are no more. Every species live on the edge, requiring specific conditions to thrive. A change of climate, a forest fire, the loss of a pollinator may do them in. In short, counting longevity in human years will only show that some species won't live as long while others will live longer. And that's that!



I thought much the same. We look at everything on 'human' factor not realizing that time isn't based on 'us'. 

side note: While most of us probably like our share of old trees (you can count me as one), taking down the old dying tree with control saved a great deal than waiting till it fell and making either a human disaster or a mess. Good choice of timing Shiva and sorry for your loss.


----------



## Shiva (Aug 20, 2012)

bullsie said:


> I thought much the same. We look at everything on 'human' factor not realizing that time isn't based on 'us'.



True, but only self consciousness has the capacity to measure time, space, temperatures, and so on. Whithout ''us'' the universe has no need for time and other measurable things. As far as the universe is concerned, the time is always now. I thought it was worth adding. At least we're good for something.


----------



## orcoholic (Aug 20, 2012)

IMHO, and I've not heard this elsewhere, is that the phals that are currently cloned have a limited time they will grow normally. After that period they will have one problem or another and eventually die. I rarely saw this when all we could get were seed crosses. I see it all the time now. THis is especially true with the harlequins. I can't remember when I saw a senior citizen clone at a show. I don't think this is due to virus, as I have tested some with the Agdia kits and found none. 

Thus, I think it's the cloning process that causes phals to have a limited lifespan.

Other genera, even the cloned ones seem to go on without any problems. Oncs, Catts, etc all seem to not have the same problem.

Paphs & Phrags don't seem to have a limited lifespan and of course are all seed grown. I have some that are 20 years old. If they would only bloom every year too.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 20, 2012)

Refering to phals, I have some old ones and a few years ago one put up a spike right in the center of the growth. I researched it and it is called the terminal spike. That is the last spike the plant will produce. It has not died yet. It has just sat there for about two years and now is starting to put up a few basal keikis. So the plant will live on but not the origonal growth.


----------



## Rick (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm more in line with John M. But it would be nice to have some data on in-situ orchids having 100+ year histories. Seems like Orchids Mag has had some orchid tourist articles where folks have gone into little towns in South America or Mexico, and asked locals about various huge plants (usually Catts), and found that they've been there "all their life" or "planted by their Great Great Grandma", suggesting that these semi wild plants have been around for 50 - 100 years no problem. And I know of a handful of 50+ year old plants in collections here in Tennessee or mounted on trees in Florida.

25 or less does not seem realistic.

I wouldn't blame everything on K by any means, but the K is illustrative of how much over feeding our plants get relative to wild plants and I think is a big issue for long term viability.

Go back to the K example, K is stored by the plant as well as potting mix. So there is lots of documentation that K buildup in plant tissues result in stunting and death too (not just bad potting mix issues).


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm in agreement with a post that Andy Easton made in response to that question. He felt that monopodials, which, for the most part, are continually growing single plants, do seem to have a finite lifespan, while sympodials, which continually make new growths, last a very long time. My own observations back it up. Due to space restrictions, I have only a few vandas. But, I find them incredibly easy to grow and bloom. They last for years. However, one of my favorites, which did well for maybe 23-25 years, simply died on me last year. It lost its leaves , and that was it. No change in growing conditions. My oldest is an Ascda, that is currently 27 years old. This year, the main stalk did the same thing. However, this one had made keikiis at the base, and those are doing very well. Basically, I think its that sympodials are reproducing, while monopodials, for the most part, are just growing. We may have 100+ year old divisions of many orchids, but where are their back growths?


----------



## Ray (Aug 21, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> <edited by RB>Due to space restrictions, I have only a few vandas. But, I find them incredibly easy to grow and bloom. They last for years. However, one of my favorites, which did well for maybe 23-25 years, simply died on me last year. It lost its leaves , and that was it. No change in growing conditions.



Eric, my take on this is that something _had_ to have changed - maybe not a cultural parameter _per se_, but something. Buildup of a toxic material maybe; an unknown disease of some sort. Who knows?


----------



## gonewild (Aug 21, 2012)

Ray said:


> Eric, my take on this is that something _had_ to have changed - maybe not a cultural parameter _per se_, but something. Buildup of a toxic material maybe; an unknown disease of some sort. Who knows?



I agree with what you said Ray.
In the case of vandas , phals and monipodials in general consider an important environmental factor of "space" (area). Vandas and phals when growing on trees in a natural environment have the opportunity to creep or ramble as they grow in an unconfined manor. As they grow they produce roots higher up the aging stem that are intended to replace the older roots and stem as it decays away. In an artificial environment this space and opportunity is not really available to the plant. Perhaps being forced to retain the old roots and stems does cause a buildup of toxic material. Also the creep and ramble allows the plant to migrate away from attachment points which may have become contaminated by toxic buildup.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 21, 2012)

Orchids are very tough plants and can go on for a long time if most of the cultural parameters are good but lacking a little in some areas. Like a certain deficiency or to much of something to a toxic level in the plant. It may not be easy to detect or may not express itself physically enough to cause concern. But eventually gets to the point of no return and the plant dies "mysteriously". Like Ray said something changed. Maybe it just happened over a long period.


----------



## cnycharles (Aug 21, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> Like Ray said something changed. Maybe it just happened over a long period.



maybe he forgot to speak kindly to it one day and it decided there was no more reason to live... :rollhappy:


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Aug 21, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> maybe he forgot to speak kindly to it one day and it decided there was no more reason to live... :rollhappy:



I make a point to talk to my plants when I can. If they are sick I sing to them, say I'm sorry, etc. More than once I've said excuse me when bumping into one or worse yet, knocking them over.


----------



## gonewild (Aug 21, 2012)

Plants don't mind when you when you don't talk verbally to them, it is your thoughts that count..... but they won't tolerate it when you refuse to listen to them.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 21, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Plants don't mind when you when you don't talk verbally to them, it is your thoughts that count..... but they won't tolerate it when you refuse to listen to them.


That's good, Lance!

I talk to my plants silently, but they get those thoughts through my breath, touch and observation. Unfortunately, I must not listen carefully enough to some of them...


----------



## Rick (Aug 21, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I'm in agreement with a post that Andy Easton made in response to that question. He felt that monopodials, which, for the most part, are continually growing single plants, do seem to have a finite lifespan, while sympodials, which continually make new growths, last a very long time. My own observations back it up. Due to space restrictions, I have only a few vandas. But, I find them incredibly easy to grow and bloom. They last for years. However, one of my favorites, which did well for maybe 23-25 years, simply died on me last year. It lost its leaves , and that was it. No change in growing conditions. My oldest is an Ascda, that is currently 27 years old. This year, the main stalk did the same thing. However, this one had made keikiis at the base, and those are doing very well. Basically, I think its that sympodials are reproducing, while monopodials, for the most part, are just growing. We may have 100+ year old divisions of many orchids, but where are their back growths?



Might want to get some call ins from Florida. Especially Robert Fuchs. I bet he has mounted vandas on his property that have been there longer than 50 years.


----------

