Issue with multis - leaf flopping over

[Rick]

I get this feeling that we have to avoid fast growth because it is unsighty????
Has anyone checked whether or not this is natural and is the "norm" in nature?

I think these are very good questions. We most often see in situ pics of blooming plants, so the spike would hold that youngest leaf up by default.

My gut feeling on this is not just unsightly, but a chronic bent leaf could lead to damage at the "pinch point" with possible vector to infection. We always worry about air flow and crown rots. In a minority of cases I've had this problem in the past so I would stake leaves to alleviate the pinch and improve airflow to the crown.

Since it does not happen all the time (or even the majority of the time) I don't feel (in my gut) it's "normal". So worth trying to "correct".

Stone was considering the K factor on the basis of water balance and leaf turgidity. If that was the case then maybe inadequate water (either at the roots or air humidity) would be indicated.

If the leaf is turgid and water not limited, but wall strength is weak then improper macro nutrients could be indicated.

 

[Rick]

By the way got some data from Manola at Peruflora on PK habitat. ( Not a multi-paph, but a big floppy fast growing Phrag in Karst habitat)

He had interstitial water chemistry from around the roots of in situ PK.

Ca = 45.6 ppm
Mg = 3.96
K = 0.39
Na = 1.2

alkalinity = 104 as CaCO3 (bicarb = 127 ppm)
Cl =14.2
SO4 = 7.68
N (not sure nitrate or total N) = 0.01 me/L so depending on N species less than 1ppm.
No data on P

Conductivity = 250 us/cm


Leaf tissue data
Ca = 23.4 mg/gr
Mg = 5.0
K = 4.9
No Na, S, Cl data

N = 7.2mg/gr
P = 0.8

Also there was a creek just downslope of the PK

Ca = 27ppm
Mg =2.28
K = 1.17
Na = 7.59
alkalinity = 68 ppm as CaCO3
SO4 = 3.84
Cl = 14.2
Conductivity = 130us/cm

Should also add that the water analysis concentrations are right in line what you'd find in the karst regions of Tennessee/Kentucky as well as the sinkholes and streams in the Lake Kutubu region of PNG. It would be great to compare to karst of Borneo and southern China/Laos/Vietnam, but I wouldn't expect to see a lot of difference.

 

[Bjorn]

Interesting data, but claiming PK to be a fast growing floppy plant is contrary to many peoples experiences. Guess it can be fast growing, but how to make it, thats the question.
Regarding the floppy leaves syndrome, I see it on lowii, and seen it on some phrags. And recently on randsii as well. Its only when the new leaves push and after a while they stiffen up, raise and look exactly if they never were soft. Just what happens to most leaves in spring.

 

[Ruth]

This happens to me as well. It has to do with the lower light intensity during this time of the year. Just stake it and add more lighting.

I agree with paphman910, since I have been giving my paphs more light, I don't seem to have as much of a problem with floppy leaves.

 

[troy]

Even with enough light and humidity during a rapid growth spurt that happens I have an esquirolei that grew an inch and a half in 1 month it's just starting to stiffen up I can post a pic if you want, it's still kind of floppy

 

[Stone]

By the way got some data from Manola at Peruflora on PK habitat. ( Not a multi-paph, but a big floppy fast growing Phrag in Karst habitat)

He had interstitial water chemistry from around the roots of in situ PK.

Ca = 45.6 ppm
Mg = 3.96
K = 0.39
Na = 1.2

alkalinity = 104 as CaCO3 (bicarb = 127 ppm)
Cl =14.2
SO4 = 7.68
N (not sure nitrate or total N) = 0.01 me/L so depending on N species less than 1ppm.
No data on P

So this would make Klite ratios and formulation way off then wouldn't it?
I would almost have to give just tap water. I cannot see having the results I'm looking for with that.
Habitat data is begining to look more and more incomplete to me!

 

[Rick]

Any low K program is closer to these constituent ratios than the old MSU or a 20-20-20 at 100ppm N. Obviously there's a ton of latitude that the plants will tolerate since we have a lot of good looking plants to show for it.

But yes you could grow plants on nothing but tap water too (and some people do that too). That would be closer to what nature provides.

 

[Rick]

Habitat data is begining to look more and more incomplete to me!

Incomplete, or not matching up to the notions we construct on how we think the world should operate:wink:


Also interesting was rainfall pattern. This was "dry season" data. When it just rains part of every day.

Sampling during "Wet Season" is prohibitive since it rains continuously for days on end, and the creeks are impassible raging torrents!! Subsequently mineral constituents would be much reduced by dilution during wet season.

 

[gonewild]

Incomplete, or not matching up to the notions we construct on how we think the world should operate:wink:


Also interesting was rainfall pattern. This was "dry season" data. When it just rains part of every day.

Sampling during "Wet Season" is prohibitive since it rains continuously for days on end, and the creeks are impassible raging torrents!! Subsequently mineral constituents would be much reduced by dilution during wet season.

Sampling during the wet or dry season will yield about similar results, not much in the flowing water.
Insitu nutrient data won't tell us much more until we find a way to determine the nutrients that organisms provide directly to the plant. The flora and fauna that live IN and on orchid roots are likely providing most of the nutrients the plants get from Nature. There is not enough nutrients in stemflow to supply what the plants are using and orchid roots are not well adapted for removing nutrients from substrates.

Yes floppy leaves do happen in the wild but not normally. I think the "flop" is a result of a combination of rapid growth caused by high nutrients, warmer than normal remps, darker than normal conditions and increased water supply that happen to coincide with a certain stage the leaf growth is in.

 

[Rick]

The flora and fauna that live IN and on orchid roots are likely providing most of the nutrients the plants get from Nature. There is not enough nutrients in stemflow to supply what the plants are using and orchid roots are not well adapted for removing nutrients from substrates.

Given the N in PK leaf tissue I'd agree that most of the N is coming in from nitrogen fixing flora, but there's plenty of K, Ca, and Mg to support the plant in stemflow.

Plants are less than 1% macros and micros wet weight. So it doesn't take much to support them.

 

[naoki]

Folliar overdosing of auxins (e.g. Kelp) when there isn't enough light and/or temp? It's a wild speculation, but auxins are involved in etiolation (e.g. bean sprout) and phototropisms.

 

[SlipperFan]

Well, I sometimes experience this with both my multis and my Phrags. I just brace them a bit until the leaves stiffen on their own. I don't see it as a big problem.

 

[cnycharles]

Wouldn't there be more mineral in runoff during high rain and flooding? Water usually gets muddier because of erosion and though higher volume of water past roots it still has constant nutrients in it. Constant flow could allow high potential for overall access just a thought


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rick]

Wouldn't there be more mineral in runoff during high rain and flooding? Water usually gets muddier because of erosion and though higher volume of water past roots it still has constant nutrients in it. Constant flow could allow high potential for overall access just a thought


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are soluble ion measurements and do not account for solids. You can have more solids loss (yes more particulates/TSS) under higher flows, but solubility of solids is relatively constant per element of concern (under natural conditions of temp and pH), so with more water you just dilute more from the constant pool of leaching solids. Calcareous materials are generally the slowest and monovalents (sodium and potassium) the fastest. Given that Ca is the highest cation in solution you can see that the source pool of Na and K is small and washed out

When you look at stormwater runoff the "first flush" after an extended dry period is the most concentrated, but it dilutes fast as the rain event continues.

 

[gonewild]

Wouldn't there be more mineral in runoff during high rain and flooding? Water usually gets muddier because of erosion and though higher volume of water past roots it still has constant nutrients in it. Constant flow could allow high potential for overall access just a thought

These are soluble ion measurements and do not account for solids. You can have more solids loss (yes more particulates/TSS) under higher flows, but solubility of solids is relatively constant per element of concern (under natural conditions of temp and pH), so with more water you just dilute more from the constant pool of leaching solids. Calcareous materials are generally the slowest and monovalents (sodium and potassium) the fastest. Given that Ca is the highest cation in solution you can see that the source pool of Na and K is small and washed out

When you look at stormwater runoff the "first flush" after an extended dry period is the most concentrated, but it dilutes fast as the rain event continues.

Remember the run off that most orchids get comes from rock, not mud laiden ground that washes away in a rain or covers orchid plants in a flood. Even during torrential downpours most of the rain water in tropical type habitat flows in channels and the orchids are either beside or over the ground flow. As Rick said the first rainfall will carry the most dissolved nutrients but the plants exposure to that water is very short and quickly followed by huge amounts of 0 EC water.
The high rain and run off water would be more of a clear water flush than a nutrient bath.

 

[troy]

When the leaves get floppy thats when you should eat them as a salad or blend them up as a veggie drink. Lol...

 

[gonewild]

When the leaves get floppy thats when you should eat them as a salad or blend them up as a veggie drink. Lol...

I prefer a crispy salad.

 

[Stone]

Incomplete, or not matching up to the notions we construct on how we think the world should operate:wink:

Incomplete. There must be something else going on. Eg: to get my plants to grow like they should (meaning a big healthy plant on a tree with flowers everywhere etc) I have to feed stronger concentrations of nutrient than is apparent in the habitat data. I have a few orchids around the place which I don't really care about and get no food whatsoever only water or rain. They grow and they even flower but they are miserble, stunted things. Feeding habitat concentrations would do little to help these.

I believe the environment must have a lot to do with the orchid's growth response. As an extreme example, If I tried to grow a Dendrobium lasianthera in artificial conditions, no matter what I did I could not get 3 metre canes to develop like in the habitat.

You almost have to establish an individual set of conditions for each species which of course is impossible. So extra nutrients may go some way in countering the effect of a less than ideal growing environment.

Another example. I have a Phal schilleriana which I very happy with at the moment. Nice big round fleshy leaves like I would expect in the wild plants.
(I have an old black & white photo of a room full of collected schills...huge!)
To get this kind of growth I am feeding at every watering with about 100 to 150 ppm N and similar K levels along with low P and etc. I am certain I would not get this type of growth with half that amount let alone one tenth!

 

[Rick]

Another example. I have a Phal schilleriana which I very happy with at the moment. Nice big round fleshy leaves like I would expect in the wild plants.
(I have an old black & white photo of a room full of collected schills...huge!)
To get this kind of growth I am feeding at every watering with about 100 to 150 ppm N and similar K levels along with low P and etc. I am certain I would not get this type of growth with half that amount let alone one tenth!

Oh I bet you certainly can get monster schill with a lot less. I have one now that WAS a total monster on the old weekly weakly routine. Mounted too. One winter had well over 150 flowers. Well after 3 years it busted big time. Even rotted the log it was on. Now I'm nursing back a keiki of it.

In the meantime I have a mounted Phal sturartiana (seedling purchase 2007 or 2008) that's been getting bigger and bigger with less and less feed each year. Leaves over a foot long, 4-5 basal keiki's, four branching spikes last year, and so far 3 this year (It won't have open blooms till the end of February). I even found a little keiki growing off of a root, no-where near the mother plant.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28882&highlight=stuartiana (for 2013)

Now its mounted and gets fertigated every day instead of the big weekly dumps. What the plants really want is water. The rest is hardly necessary.

Then there's the little old German lady in Shelbyville. 5 greenhouses of specimen plants doing great with NO supplementing whatsoever.

 

[Bjorn]

One brief comment; remember that pot growing restricts the roots severely. Most paphs in the wild have very big root systems as compared to a pot-bound plant and will therefore be able to capture more nutrients. To compensate for that, we need to add the nutrients as a higher dose, which may, or may not have negative side-effects. The solution to this would probably be to grow our plants in rather shallow, but wide containers. That way the roots would have space but unfortunately, the number of plants per square meter would drop; so .....Guess we will have to build even bigger greenhouses boys (and girls)!:clap: