# wild plants/cultivated plants



## Stone (Dec 30, 2013)

I would like to revisit this subject (if anyone is interested) I have re-read Xavier's thoughts on the subject. And I've been racking my brain about it too. (with no outcome) 
Why can I get Cattleyas and other epiphytes to grow as well -or better- than the wild ones yet not paphs? What is really missing? 
Why are paph leaves so big in wild plants compared to ours? 
Why do they flower when they seem to be only half developed?

Xavier puts it down to nutrition and correct dormancy. Maybe but it seems to take a plant too long to break dormancy and begin growing vigorously before the season is over. It seems to me that with these seasonal paphs at least, they should mature a complete growth in one season then flower which means 3 to 5 leaves in one growth season. This NEVER happens with me. Why do they grow so fast and big in the habitat? As I said, I have no such problems with other orchids, so there must be somthing fundamentally wrong that I/we are doing with paphiopedilums. Could it be the form of N we give is not to their liking?

Could it be their roots prefer not be in pots? They seem to like the freedom of baskets and the insigne I planted under my benches on the greenhouse floor grew much better than the potted ones (in plain lava)
Is there a good study anywhere from a paph habitat showing complete soil analysis especially regarding nutrient ratios?

Happy 2014!


----------



## gonewild (Dec 30, 2013)

Stone said:


> Could it be their roots prefer not be in pots? They seem to like the freedom of baskets and the insigne I planted under my benches on the greenhouse floor grew much better than the potted ones (in plain lava)



I have always said that paphs, phrags and most terrestrial type orchids grow better when planted in large pots so that their roots dot's have to hit a wall and turn. i know it sounds crazy but it is true based on what i have observed over the years. Orchids that have no aerial roots like their roots to grow free and not crammed together. It just is not even close to natural to have a roths roots all confined into a 6 inch pot. Roots growing in a glob like that just don't have a chance to perform efficiently.

Happy new year!


----------



## limuhead (Dec 31, 2013)

I planted the runts of a flask (Phrag. boiserianum x besseae) in the leaf litter under my Lychee tree they have surpassed their siblings and they get little, if any fertilizer, fungicide or any other amendments. Why? I haven't a clue, but am looking forward to comparing the flowers when they bloom.


----------



## paphioboy (Dec 31, 2013)

Root aeration is key. Lighting too.


----------



## dodidoki (Dec 31, 2013)

Another clue could be the very weak but regular fertilizing in nature with lack of K. As Rick said and it is my experience, too, plants kept in K-lite diet grows bigger, especially if they get only weak solution but with every waterings. Also known, that K indicates flowering before growth-maturing, furthermore I have seen plant kept on K-rich diet, what produced flower stem at the base of old crown surrounded only 2-3 tiny leaves.


----------



## Cheyenne (Dec 31, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> Another clue could be the very weak but regular fertilizing in nature with lack of K. As Rick said and it is my experience, too, plants kept in K-lite diet grows bigger, especially if they get only weak solution but with every waterings. Also known, that K indicates flowering before growth-maturing, furthermore I have seen plant kept on K-rich diet, what produced flower stem at the base of old crown surrounded only 2-3 tiny leaves.



I will buy the fact that it could have a lot to do with very little fertilize. Also very good water quality low in TDS. But I dont think K is one of the main reasons by itself. Without getting into any kind of debate about it, because I do not want to contribute to starting another conversation about it. I think low nutrients is good and very low if any chemical fertilizers are great. A while ago I visited a local small grower. He had some of the best grown paphs I have ever seen. There was an area that was roped off, it was about 15 ft away and I was stunned by the size of the parvi leaves I could see. I begged him to go back and look at them. He had paph vietnamense with a leaf span of 20-22 inches. Some of the leaves were at least 5-6 inches wide. They were as big as my hand spread out. I could not believe it. He had a bellatulum the same way. He said most of them were four years from flask. When I asked him what he fertilizes with he said "Peters, bloom booster" which is something like 10—20—30(without looking it up). I couldnt stop laughing and he said "you must be a member of slippertalk". He said the key was low light and more constant tempatures. It was dark in there. He had a white plastic roof that was very dirty. He said he tries not to fluctuate the temperatures to much between seasons or it forces the plants to flower To early. They will flower when they are ready. That is not my veiw but a interesting piece of information.


----------



## JeanLux (Dec 31, 2013)

While I had a very bad year conc. flowering, (esp. for my paphs, but also for catts and family), I am really glad to see lots of spikes on my viets (of course not the leaf size Cheyenne mentionned) : a new one from Popow with 1 spike, 1 of my elder with 3 spikes , another one with at least 2 starting spikes! I def. do not have the green thumb , but my vietnamense do well! I am happy about that without really knowing what in my culture does them good!?? Jean


----------



## NYEric (Dec 31, 2013)

Are you really comparing why plants dont grow and bloom in your environment as compared to the place where they developed and grow naturally!?!


----------



## gonewild (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> When I asked him what he fertilizes with he said "Peters, bloom booster" which is something like 10—20—30(without looking it up). I couldnt stop laughing and he said "you must be a member of slippertalk".



Did he also tell you where his secret fishing hole is? :rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> Why are paph leaves so big in wild plants compared to ours?
> Why do they flower when they seem to be only half developed?
> 
> 
> Happy 2014!



After 2.5 years of eco-relevant feeding: (Whether or not you want to call it low K or low TDS, or just plain old low), my slippers are acting more and more like big wild plants.

So I feel like I'm getting farther away from your generalized observation, and not looking for a new "what's missing" concept.


----------



## naoki (Dec 31, 2013)

I've also wondered about this after reading Xavier's document. It is also observed in several Phals, right? For example, you'll rarely get the giant Phal. gigantea or doweryensis under cultivation. Also the shape of leaves become rounder in GH. Even if you start with the collected Phals with large leaves, they change the size and shape of the leaves after cultivation. There could be several factors:

1. light spectrum and intensity
2. humidity
3. difference in mycorrhizae association

Shade in nature is created by canopy trees, so the spectrum may be different from GH condition. For example, if red:blue is biased toward red in nature, then it may promote elongation of leaves. Also, some plants produce larger and thinner leaves under shadier condition. These are the general plant response of photomorphogensis, and I'm not sure Paphs show those responses.

If humidity is lower in GH (and light intensity is not too low), it is more advantageous to make smaller (and possibly thicker) leaves.

In the case of Paphs, I wonder if mycorrhizae association plays more dominant role in adult plants than other epiphytic orchids. According to a paper (I just read the abstract), the association is relatively flexible, and different species are associated with Paphs in GH than in nature. This could be due to the plants choosing the different fungi in GH, which is more suitable for GH condition, or the lack of optimal fungi in GH. Since mycorrhizae are like the "extension of roots", the plants can maintain larger shoot mass with the optimal fungi.

Plasticity of association:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20217434

Effect of mycorrhizae on Paph growth (I could only read abstract since it is in chinese):
http://europepmc.org/abstract/CBA/356131


----------



## Cheyenne (Dec 31, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Did he also tell you where his secret fishing hole is? :rollhappy:



I dont understand your question. I was just telling you what he said because he obviously knew what questions I was going to inquire about.


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne;462154When I asked him what he fertilizes with he said "Peters said:


> Looking it up is 10-30-20.
> 
> But lots of other factors go into what the plant experiences.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> Is there a good study anywhere from a paph habitat showing complete soil analysis especially regarding nutrient ratios?
> 
> Happy 2014!



I've pointed out the leaf litter analysis for forest floors in Sumatra, and attached a link to tropical serpentine soils.

There's nothing new that hasn't already been discused to death.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I dont understand your question. I was just telling you what he said because he obviously knew what questions I was going to inquire about.



My question was in humor.

"Most" successful growers are like fishermen.
Ask a fishermen where he catches all those big fish and he will tell you a location in the opposite direction from where he fishes....he wants to be the one that catches the biggest fish so he misleads you. And many fishermen take pleasure in misleading the competition.

Why would an orchid grower be any different than a fisherman?
A grower that has great success most often does not give the actual truth or facts to his secret of superior plant growth. Instead just say "Peters" and the discussion ends and his secret is his to excel with.
:wink:


----------



## Cheyenne (Dec 31, 2013)

Anyway, my only points were that I dont think it is one nutritional factor like K or type of N. That all kinds of people can obviously grow great plants with a variety of feeding kinds, types and frequencies. No doubt that people using low k can grow some great plants. But mosy important I think is that it is low to very low to almost nonexistent(especially with chemical fertilizers). And maybe some other things that we have been taught over the years like if a plants does not bloom when we think it should we should give it more light. Might make the plants flower to early or not grow the way they could. I have noticed this when i run out of room. I have a few vandas(high light plants, right?), I put them off to the side where they get maybe a hundred fc from the florescents. It took them a little longer than usual but when they were ready they still bloomed. I had a cerulea with six spikes this hear under that light. 

I am not saying low k does not work or you can't grow good plants with it. Nor was I attacking anyone that uses it. I just wanted to state what I saw and what was said when I saw some amazing plants. The way that this grower grows his plants is not how I choose to grow mine or how anyone else might choose to but it works for them and is another way to get to the same end, which is good healthy plants. Does that statement work without ruffling anyones feathers?


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

I find it funny that we keep looking for answers from nature, but then pick and choose what we think is important, and then go back on the quest for the ultimate secret.

Until you actually try replicating the chemical environment of the in situ rhyzosphere, I don't think you should rule out your present regime as a causitive factor of why your plants aren't meeting in situ expecations.


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I am not saying low k does not work or you can't grow good plants with it. Nor was I attacking anyone that uses it. I just wanted to state what I saw and what was said when I saw some amazing plants. The way that this grower grows his plants is not how I choose to grow mine or how anyone else might choose to but it works for them and is another way to get to the same end, which is good healthy plants. Does that statement work without ruffling anyones feathers?



Sure, I'm not ruffled, but I also can't spend too much time on a post using polite word choices without getting timed out (so please avoid adding emotion to the response).

But we are looking for understanding and answers. Do you think you could replicate your friends results based on the observations you made and the things he told you?


----------



## gonewild (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> Does that statement work without ruffling anyones feathers?



I don't see any ruffled feathers (yet!)?

My comment about relying on the info from the grower you visited is that what he is doing is nothing new.... peters fertilizer, low light, constant temperature, ect. None of those are combinations that have not been tweaked over and over for more than 50 years, or longer if you exclude Peters fertilizer.

You said he has Paph foliage 5" or 6" wide and that is extreme phenomenal growth that represents some great achievement. When you ask him how he does it and he gives you a standard casual answer that might raise ones suspension about what he actually is doing with his culture. "Most plants are 4 years out of flask" with 6" wide leaves? Fantastic! But how?

Here a re a few questions out of curiosity and not ruffled feathers.
Does the grower sell Peters fertilizer by any chance?
He obviously knows about Slippertalk, is he a member?
Why are most of the plants with big leaves "4 years out of flask"?
Maybe for 75% of these plants life he is secretly using a low k formula?

So to get back on point of wild/cultivated....
Comparing wild and cultivated
How does this growers culture relate to wild conditions?
Is it desirable to have giant foliage on young plants?
Are the giant leaves a sign of obesity that will lead to a short lifespan?


----------



## NYEric (Dec 31, 2013)

Bad last comment for the Holiday eating season!!


----------



## Cheyenne (Dec 31, 2013)

gonewild said:


> My question was in humor.
> 
> "Most" successful growers are like fishermen.
> Ask a fishermen where he catches all those big fish and he will tell you a location in the opposite direction from where he fishes....he wants to be the one that catches the biggest fish so he misleads you. And many fishermen take pleasure in misleading the competition.
> ...



Maybe, but I dont think he saw me as a threat. We talked for a while and he was saying that he uses peters because it is cheap. That the kind or makeup of the fertilizer doesnt seem to matter as long as it is low and not everytime you water. He said what made the biggest difference for his greenhouse is when he put on the white plastic roof which really cut the light down and put in a cooling system for the summer so the temps were more even all year. Basically I think nutrition plays a very small role in culture. I think creating the right environment is a bigger part and not overdoing the fertilizer will help more than fertilizing itself.


----------



## Cheyenne (Dec 31, 2013)

Here a re a few questions out of curiosity and not ruffled feathers.
Does the grower sell Peters fertilizer by any chance?
He obviously knows about Slippertalk, is he a member?
Why are most of the plants with big leaves "4 years out of flask"?
Maybe for 75% of these plants life he is secretly using a low k formula?

So to get back on point of wild/cultivated....
Comparing wild and cultivated
How does this growers culture relate to wild conditions?
Is it desirable to have giant foliage on young plants?
Are the giant leaves a sign of obesity that will lead to a short lifespan?[/QUOTE]

Yes, your right. Back to wild plants. I just wanted to tell the people on this forum something amazing that I saw. I am not this person, and yes maybe he is just laughing when I left because he secretly only gives his plants low k. Maybe they were 30 years from flask and maybe he is the owner of Peters. I had never seen parvi or brachy leaves like that before. Like I said I just wanted to tell you about some well cultivated plants I saw and the little bit of info I got from it. I know nothing else and if I coukd replicate it I would be posting some huge parvi's.


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 31, 2013)

Interesting post...but I will stay away from nutrition discussion. 

I wonder if we can compare mature plants in nature with plants grown for horticultural purposes.

Question 1:
How old are the famous big Paphs. in nature? 

Question 2:
How many seeds/seedlings are needed to produce only one big plant in situ? Usually much more than it takes to get a plant to sell. My point here is that there is a very strong selection process in nature. Only a few seeds germinate; only the best seedling survive to become mature plant. 

And the best plants for Mother Nature are not the same as ours. The plants in situ are selected by Mother Nature because they are vigorous, strong, have a good pest resistance, etc. Never because they are cute in a pot, with flat flowers with a straight dorsal, with nice colors for our human eyes, etc.... So here is my 3rd question :

If the only criterias for breeders were fast growing, vigour, perennity, etc. could they produce plants growing much faster? I think so...Of course many of you will tell me they select vigorous plants. But I am not sure anyone will try to breed with vigorous plants that bear blooms with « poor » form and color.


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Erythrone said:


> How many seeds/seedlings are needed to produce only one big plant in situ? Usually much more than it takes to get a plant to sell. My point here is that there is a very strong selection process in nature. Only a few seeds germinate; only the best seedling survive to become mature plant.
> 
> .



However, it doesn't seem to be too uncommon to see 100% mortality in GH grown flasklings in cultivation, and even the survivors don't match the quality of those rare in situ plants you refer too.

Furthermore all the plants in cultivation originally come out of the wild, and the vast bulk of those have already been killed in cultivation.

Right now folks that have spent some time in the jungle (or even temperate forests) would be hard pressed to say that orchid hobbyist and general orchid cultivation practices are anywhere near as good as what mother nature provides (or withholds).


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I was stunned by the size of the parvi leaves I could see. I begged him to go back and look at them. He had paph vietnamense with a leaf span of 20-22 inches. He had a bellatulum the same way. He said the key was low light and more constant tempatures. .



So white painted roofs are the secret for bellatulum and vietnamense for this grower.

Now compare Bjorns before and after results with parvis since changing his nutrition regime (and nothing else).

Or Ed Merkles results with vietnamense since changing his nutrition and nothing else.

I'm sure there's other before and after stories that don't involve white painted roofs.

So ultimately what we are trying to do is a huge mental ANOVA to see what correlates to good growth and what doesn't.

I know lots of growers with low light systems (including white washed GH roofs) that complain of poor results with potted orchids in general.


----------



## Rick (Dec 31, 2013)

Cheyenne

Did you happen to catch his repotting frequency?

One guy I know (who also grows low light) does pretty good with MSU and CHC as long as he repots (religously) every 6 months.

He does not do any "diffucult" species though.

There is a new article in AOS about tracking pot conductivity (with what seems to be a Cattleya dominated collection). And also points to low fert usage as a defining criteria. He uses pots with moss, and indicated the use of TDS tracking to maintain better health. He also noted religious anual repotting.

Standard MSU was used, and no attempt at isolating different constituents (especially K). And the photos of the plants look pretty average.


----------



## Stone (Dec 31, 2013)

Erythrone said:


> > How many seeds/seedlings are needed to produce only one big plant in situ? Usually much more than it takes to get a plant to sell. My point here is that there is a very strong selection process in nature. Only a few seeds germinate; only the best seedling survive to become mature plant.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be an important factor! Its certain that any weak seedling germinating in the habitat will be the first to die. Every time I deflask and grow a new lot of plants I noticed there is always 1 or maybe 2 plants which far outstrip all the others in performance. Maybe it is these which are the 1 or 2 that survive in habitat? But we grow all of them, sell them, share them around etc. These are then bred from possibly leading to genetically weaker plants?


----------



## Stone (Dec 31, 2013)

I continue to see discrepancies regarding the whole K thing so I will leave that out for now but I agree with the general idea about very weak fertilizer concentrations. 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. 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.


----------



## Stone (Dec 31, 2013)

Rick said:


> I've pointed out the leaf litter analysis for forest floors in Sumatra, and attached a link to tropical serpentine soils.
> 
> There's nothing new that hasn't already been discused to death.



Was there a break up of trace element availability in that one? I was just wondering if the TE we give our plants are in a similar ratio in relation to the N. In other words are we supplementing to much of the minors? NOT the concentration (which must remain low for all nutrients) but the correct ratio.
As I said in the post above, If a paph can find enough trace elements for an entire year from fern fibre etc., maybe just a little N would be enough..


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 31, 2013)

Rick said:


> Furthermore all the plants in cultivation originally come out of the wild, and the vast bulk of those have already been killed in cultivation.



Yes, I know. Sorry, it is difficult for me to write my thoughts correctly in English. I was talking about selecting vigorous, strong and long-lived plants under specific conditions, but not always the same conditions. Those conditions are different in nature or in cultivation. They are different even in nature as many species live in different ecosystems. And of course they are not the same for every grower in the world. A very good plant for me is often a very bad one on a windowsill of someone else and I am pretty sure it would not survive many years in its natural habitat.

My point here was that we, humans, are selecting orchids for pleasure, because they are cute, not just because they can grow quickly.



Rick said:


> Right now folks that have spent some time in the jungle (or even temperate forests) would be hard pressed to say that orchid hobbyist and general orchid cultivation practices are anywhere near as good as what mother nature provides (or withholds).



Well...I can say I spent many times in temperate forests for my job and the clump of Cyp. reginae we have in our garden is more impressive than all the wild plants I saw in our region (Eastern Townships, Qc, Can) :

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30791&highlight=cypripedium+reginae

And some people grow very impressive clumps of yellow Cyp. ... Just take a look at this one from John M. :

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21147&highlight=cypripedium


----------



## limuhead (Dec 31, 2013)

Personally I think the 'low K' or K-lite has something to do with it. For me the solution that has worked is dilute fish emulsion. Cheap and easy and I supplement with dolomite. The smell doesn't bother me at all because my greenhouse is down wind of my house. My neighbors on that side of the yard are knuckleheads, not to mention the stuff his wife cooks smells worse than the fish emulsion...:wink:


----------



## The Orchid Boy (Dec 31, 2013)

I'm not to scientific or anything but I think it may have to do with more "soft" organics, and less "hard" organics. We plant paphs in bark, CHC, charcoal, perlite, and LECA. In nature, I've always seen them attached to hard surfaces (rocks or trees) and absolutely covered in soft stuff (leaves, ect.) I've always wanted to try growing some in shredded leaves and things collected from our woods. Might try that with a few seedlings from a compot.


----------



## Stone (Jan 1, 2014)

The Orchid Boy said:


> I'm not to scientific or anything but I think it may have to do with more "soft" organics, and less "hard" organics. We plant paphs in bark, CHC, charcoal, perlite, and LECA. In nature, I've always seen them attached to hard surfaces (rocks or trees) and absolutely covered in soft stuff (leaves, ect.) I've always wanted to try growing some in shredded leaves and things collected from our woods. Might try that with a few seedlings from a compot.



The ''soft organics'' like moss, leafmold, humus, rotted wood etc. (and thats what most paphs grow in.- in fact even the ''crack dwellers'' grow in a mix of fine humus and mineral soil/clay with very fine particles) have very high Cation exchange, pH buffering capacity, and water holding capacity (which means a more steady EC) than pine bark, leca or perlite so fertilization is far less important. Its probably easier to get things wrong without the humus, moss etc. 
The problem is that in a pot such materials are difficult to manage.


----------



## Rick (Jan 1, 2014)

Stone said:


> Erythrone said:
> 
> 
> > This may be an important factor! Its certain that any weak seedling germinating in the habitat will be the first to die. Every time I deflask and grow a new lot of plants I noticed there is always 1 or maybe 2 plants which far outstrip all the others in performance. Maybe it is these which are the 1 or 2 that survive in habitat? But we grow all of them, sell them, share them around etc. These are then bred from possibly leading to genetically weaker plants?
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jan 1, 2014)

Stone said:


> Was there a break up of trace element availability in that one? I was just wondering if the TE we give our plants are in a similar ratio in relation to the N. In other words are we supplementing to much of the minors? NOT the concentration (which must remain low for all nutrients) but the correct ratio.
> As I said in the post above, If a paph can find enough trace elements for an entire year from fern fibre etc., maybe just a little N would be enough..



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.


----------



## dodidoki (Jan 1, 2014)

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.


----------



## Rick (Jan 1, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> 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.



Yes right next to exul. But I wouldn't generalize to much for all 80+?? species. The barbata types want to go much darker.


----------



## dodidoki (Jan 1, 2014)

Rick said:


> Yes right next to exul. But I wouldn't generalize to much for all 80+?? species. The barbata types want to go much darker.



I know that most of paph don't like many light but it is not the most important factor in this question. It is the easiest factor what we can controll, so if it would be the clue for secret, this topic wouldn't be exist.


----------



## naoki (Jan 1, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> I know that most of paph don't like many light but it is not the most important factor in this question. It is the easiest factor what we can controll, so if it would be the clue for secret, this topic wouldn't be exist.



In addition to the intensity, quality of light also influence the plant physiology, right? How the light quality influences the shape of plants (the process of photomorphogenesis) is a pretty complex topic. There are some agricultural papers, but I haven't seen studies on orchids.

Well, light intensity may be relatively easy to control, but controlling the quality (light spectra) is not so easy. With LED, we can start to control it easier, though.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 1, 2014)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Since you already admit that your growing conditions do not replicate nature, you are reverse selecting for individuals that can handle what you are offering and not mother nature.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jan 1, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think fert regime can explain all the difference between cultivated plants and wild ones?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jan 1, 2014)

Stone said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2014)

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 (Jan 2, 2014)

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 (Jan 2, 2014)

Trithor said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2014)

Rick said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2014)

gonewild said:


> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Trithor (Jan 2, 2014)

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


----------



## annab (Jan 2, 2014)

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 (Jan 2, 2014)

annab said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2014)

polyantha said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Jan 2, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Jan 3, 2014)

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 (Jan 3, 2014)

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 (Jan 3, 2014)

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 (Jan 4, 2014)

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 (Jan 4, 2014)

Stone said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2014)

Stone said:


> 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.


----------



## Rick (Jan 4, 2014)

Also looking at insitu leaf tissue data, I see that species which are often deciduous and have extra-floral nectaries to promote ant defenses often have elevated K (K is needed for high sugar production).

So you may see higher tolerance for K in some species that may be in the vicinity of arboreal ant colonies (maybe villosum and lowii???), while species with exposed roots on limestone cliffs never experience higher K, and have not developed the tolerance.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 4, 2014)

Very interesting comments, Rick!


----------



## Stone (Jan 4, 2014)

Rick said:


> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see no process by which a reduction in K leads to 20 to 40% increase in leave size. Perhaps you have a theory?


----------



## Rick (Jan 4, 2014)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I can see no process by which a reduction in K leads to 20 to 40% increase in leave size. Perhaps you have a theory?
> ...


----------

