Substantial K in rainforest through fall.

[Rick]

If you need homes for those seedlings I can help you out. oke:

.

You need to come down for a visit T. There's always door prizes:wink:

Also winter doldrums really put a damper on moving stuff around. We finally had a day I could turn off the heaters!

 

[gonewild]

Another point noticed from reading these exchanges that's not mentioned in the discussions is that many orchids only grow on certain trees. Why is that? If food was only in rainwater then any tree might be good. Mychorrizae connected to roots on a damp tree can supply food from elsewhere than the flowing water. Some roots of phals go long distances and submerge in crotchets or pockets of trees where there is more moisture and food, which is diluted when it rains.

I can't prove it with data but I think orchid roots can extract nutrients directly from living bark. Whether they pull the nutrients or the trees excrete the nutrients who knows. But someday someone will write a paper on this. This is the explanation of why some trees grow epiphytes and others do not.

 

[Rick]

. You may say that it might be a starting point, but if a plant actively draws up potassium, then it must seemingly need to scrounge for it. This would seem to indicate that there doesn't need to be very much available sitting around, it will gather more from around.

Try this analogy.

The average adult human male has a metabolic requirement (determined by physiology research) of about 1800 calories per day. This is a quantity and not a concentration.

Now you can get this from a single double bacon cheeseburger in a single sitting (and still have room for desert) or 5 heads of romaine lettuce (which I doubt most can down in a single meal).

You'd probably end up the better for the lettuce eating by having to constantly go to the bathroom to pee out the extra water, and go foraging for something "worthwhile" to occupy your bored stomachoke:

Now orchid culture equivalent; drop a 50 gallon drum of unwrapped Snickers bars on the guy each week and let him sort out how deal with it. But that's OK since we also dropped a 50 gallon drum of milk on him too for his calcium needs.:evil:

The K (or other elemental demand) is based on the size and instantaneous growth rate, which (granted) fluctuates more over a 24 hour period than a temperature regulating, non photosynthesizing homeotherm, but still its a 24/7 system not a weekly or monthly system, and not a ratio system.

 

[Rick]

Whether they pull the nutrients or the trees excrete the nutrients who knows. But someday someone will write a paper on this. This is the explanation of why some trees grow epiphytes and others do not.

You probably missed the earlier post I made, but I passed up on a paper that was along those lines on some tree in Australia.

But it also doesn't sound like you read that last paper I linked about degradation of epiphytic lichens and mosses to create "canopy soil" for nutrient exchange in the canopy directly.

Plants aren't going to ingest solids, so you're pretty stuck needing water or gasses to move things in/out of plants. Granted it doesn't take much water for fluid transfer. Damp is fine.:wink:

 

[gonewild]

Here is am mango tree completely covered in bromeliads, orchids and other epihytes. It gets zero through fall and stem flow.

Where do the nutrients come from to produce this mass?

 

[gonewild]

You probably missed the earlier post I made, but I passed up on a paper that was along those lines on some tree in Australia.

But it also doesn't sound like you read that last paper I linked about degradation of epiphytic lichens and mosses to create "canopy soil" for nutrient exchange in the canopy directly.

Plants aren't going to ingest solids, so you're pretty stuck needing water or gasses to move things in/out of plants. Granted it doesn't take much water for fluid transfer. Damp is fine.:wink:

I have not been able to read all the links yet, just getting back online and time to use the computer now. I'm just writing what I'm thinking not basing it on published data..... call me a trouble maker!

Yes damp is what I'm talking about. Damp is the dinner table and rain is the toilet flush.

 

[Stone]

Ok I give up.

 

[Rick]

Here is am mango tree completely covered in bromeliads, orchids and other epihytes. It gets zero through fall and stem flow.

Where do the nutrients come from to produce this mass?

That's wild, and right in the neighborhood too!!

There must be a lot of tree frogs pooping in that treeoke:oke:

 

[TyroneGenade]

You need to come down for a visit T. There's always door prizes:wink:

Sadly, I won't be near TN for some time. I'm heading west this summer into the Rockies.

It popped into my head that you mentioned mortality in your previous post. I study survival for a living (or I did, now I teach anatomy & physiology). If you have number feel free to share. I need the total number of plants in either experimental group and the number of plants that died and when they died. It isn't difficult working out if there is a difference in survival between the groups if there is enough data. The stats are relatively robust and make few assumptions so the statistical model has wide application.

I know what you mean about the weather... It was a glorious 11 oC today in NW Iowa. There was even some welcome humidity from all the melting snow and ice. Its going to be 15 oC tomorrow. I may need to pull the short-pants out of the storage. No. That is probably a bit much.

Lance that is one very impressive mango tree. How much bird and insect fertilizer is supplied? I doubt there would be direct feeding via bark simply because the bark is supposed to be water proof (if water can't pass then the ions can't either). Perhaps the decomposition of old bark? Any have any nutrient values for plain, boring bark? There are probably a lot of mango leaves getting caught up as well.

 

[Trithor]

but wasn't there a K-light vs normal K experiment in the works? Any results thus far? These debates are getting a bit old

My rather empirical study is nearing a full year. It has been through a full winter, and the better part of a summer. I am also looking forward to stopping it, as it is becoming a bit of a pain in the rear end. I have been feeding half the greenhouse with a 'MSU' type fertilizer, and the other half with a 'K-lite' type fertilizer. Each half has a mixture of seedlings, various species and a range of hybrids, about 2000 plants to each group.
To be honest I can not see a marked difference, but in a couple of months I will go through the RIP box and check the red and blue tags and the notes relating to their demise. Then I will repost random plants through the greenhouse and scrutinise as many plants as possible. I have a mountain of closeup photos of the benches, which I will compare to current.
Although the debates have happened often, and a lot of the same ground is covered, I would not go so far as to call them 'old'. I can see a gradual shift in some of the debates indicating a slight change in ideas, obviously K will remain a central point of contention, but if as growers we were not concerned, we would not bother discussing it any further. It is an important factor in culture, and I predict that there will be many more debates of a similar (if slightly different) nature.

I agree. I have no idea why I get hooked into them either.

I guess because the topic is important to you? I for one am very glad that you continue to be involved and argue your points so strongly. Each time there is a gradual shift or refinement of the topic, with valuable information being added each time (even if it does take some wading and distillation to get them).

When it rains in the forest the canopy acts like an umbrella and sheds falling rain water away from the trunk.
But as I mentioned before most orchid species come from more open forest of even tree-less locations. The zones in the Andes that have the most orchids really don't have a forest canopy to nutrify falling rain. The orchids grow on the ground on in small shrubs or small trees. No falling nutrified rainwater. Instead the plants grow in living moss with lichens associated. Rain wets the moss and the moss environment releases nutrients.

Every now and again a valuable point is made, sometimes obvious and simple, sometimes a bit more complex. A simple observation such as this, kind of alters the whole debate, perhaps not drastically, but it requires a definite shift. Another valuable point that has become more prevalent of late is the focus on pioneer plants such as lichens and mosses. How could we possibly address the topic of epiphytic nutrition without them being a central point in the discussion, as their influence can only be pivotal.

 

[Secundino]

Oh god, that is so sad.
A canopy is no umbrella, its a SPONGE. (And even if it was a kind of leaky umbrella, isn't there another tree at the side where the umbrella is dripping?) Even the leaves of the tree are no clean! There are plenty of algae living there!
If those composed leaves are the trees', that tree is not a mango, and it is merely living. If those leaves are not the leaves of the tree, that trunk is completely dead. So the epifitic community will not last that long and if you could compare it with the community that lived there while tere was a canopy, you would note a shift in species. And it will gradually change to a community living on decaying wood.
It is interesting that the idea I'm with (miccorhiza) doesn't get credits because supposedly micorrhiza only functions on dead organic matter (just remember, please, that the 'other end' of the micorrhiza is attached to a living root!) but without any proof there is acceptance for the hypothesis that epiphytic roots actively suck nutrients out of living bark!
But please, go on with the nutritioned rain water and the orchid hot spots devoid of trees!

 

[Rick]

It popped into my head that you mentioned mortality in your previous post. I study survival for a living (or I did, now I teach anatomy & physiology). If you have number feel free to share.

That's funny. As an aquatic toxicologist that's all I do for a living too, and spend half of every day plugging mortality data into stat programs for analysis.:wink:

After almost 20 years I can eyeball most data without having to plug it into a stat package.

I could go back through 10 years of seedling records for flasks recieved from TM, and compare to some "remembrance" of final disposition. I could see that getting picked apart for species/lot date/parentage/losses spread out over more than 3 years....

Individual case histories (such as these lowii) will be easier.

I've had complete losses (over years) of the exact same selfing that is presently pushing blooming size with no losses (about 50 seedlings pre and post). Thats almost obvious without using stats.:wink:

Several cases straddle low K.

A flask of primulinum frittered away over 5 years till 3 survivors making it low K and then turning into blooming plants in the next year.

I purchased 2 flasks of wilhelmnea, went from about 50 to 15 plants over a couple years, but stopped the bleeding with low K and got 2 plants to blooming, and another 10 or so actually growing. I gave one to SlipperKing who says it's moving right along too.

Mastersianum got 10 to start and just sat there for the first year but turning on with low K and bloomed in less than 3 years out of flask.

2 henryanum flasks (all unrelated). Have 1 left from 1 (96% loss) but after almost dieing should bloom this fall, another flask got down to 4 plants (some given away) probably 75% + mortality loss with survivors not growing. Then having those last few turn into multigrowth bloomers in the last 2 years.

A third henry flask from a cross I did with Jason Fisher recieved after K lite (that's about 6-8 months after I started low K), are all still alive (0 mortality), and even had 1 bloom. Most are still crammed in the compot

 

[Rick]

It is interesting that the idea I'm with (miccorhiza) doesn't get credits because supposedly micorrhiza only functions on dead organic matter (just remember, please, that the 'other end' of the micorrhiza is attached to a living root!) but without any proof there is acceptance for the hypothesis that epiphytic roots actively suck nutrients out of living bark!

I think you should also read that paper I linked on degradation of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens.

I'm sure you'll find your link to micorrhiza in the trees there:wink:

 

[Rick]

It popped into my head that you mentioned mortality in your previous post. I study survival for a living (or I did, now I teach anatomy & physiology). If you have number feel free to share.

Wow a lot worse than I thought. Went into my TM records.

First flasks (lowii) in 2003 and picked up about 32 flasks before 2008 (that's about 800 seedlings of which I can probably count the total I raised to blooming on both hands. Certainly every last lowii and philipinense are gone before getting more than 6-8 inches across. Also Phrags like pearcei and lindleyanum. I have 1 left of those original pearcei that is just now coming back after almost losing it a dozen times

The transition period 2008 to mid 2010. Another 16 flasks (~400 seedlings) are really mixed. In this group, when referenced to the 2003 thru 2007 period, you could tell that typically I burned a flask out over the coarse of about 3-4 years (never had a catastrophic complete loss in less than a month or 2). So overall compot mortality by mid 2010 was maybe 50% for flasks picked up early in 2008. Stuff picked up closer to (or in 2010) wasn't as beat up by the time low K started in mid 2011(like the mastersianum, and a bunch of supardii seedlings).

I've only picked up 5 flasks worth (~125 seedlings) since mid 2010. And Low K starting mid 2011. 3 from outside TM. Like that henry flask from OL. Except for an anomalous flask of wardii that completely cratered in a month from erwinia (it really didn't last long enough to get fed), I have had 0 losses and excellent growth from these flasks.

So it looks like max life span of any given compot would have been between 4-5 years before 2008/2009. And after 2008 (with K lite intervention in 2011) I have lots of stuff not only surviving but blooming and flourishing with no end in site after 5 years by the end of 2013.

 

[gonewild]

Oh god, that is so sad.
A canopy is no umbrella, its a SPONGE. (And even if it was a kind of leaky umbrella, isn't there another tree at the side where the umbrella is dripping?) Even the leaves of the tree are no clean! There are plenty of algae living there!

I compare it to an umbrella because it diverts most of the water away from the trunk. Orchids like Phalaenopsis that grow on the trunk would not receive the rainwater as through fall. Water may come down as stem flow but in reality little water flows down the trunk. Most water that you would think would run down the trunk is diverted away and flows down vines to the ground. This is one instance why analysis of through fall water may not represent nutrients that a a main supply for the epiphytes. Through fall tends to fall between trees.

If those composed leaves are the trees', that tree is not a mango, and it is merely living. If those leaves are not the leaves of the tree, that trunk is completely dead. So the epifitic community will not last that long and if you could compare it with the community that lived there while tere was a canopy, you would note a shift in species. And it will gradually change to a community living on decaying wood.

It is a mango and still alive but declining fast due to the epiphytic overload.

It is interesting that the idea I'm with (miccorhiza) doesn't get credits

As far as I know Miccorhiza deliver nutrients to plants but do not manufacture nutrients? Miccorhiza presence does not effect the ratios or quantities of nutrients around the plants. Perhaps miccrohiza control the ratio of nutrients a plant uptakes but that would still be limited to what nutrients are in the environment the miccrohiza has access to.

Do miccrohiza supply potassium to orchid plants?

 

[Rick]

As far as I know Miccorhiza deliver nutrients to plants but do not manufacture nutrients? Miccorhiza presence does not effect the ratios or quantities of nutrients around the plants. Perhaps miccrohiza control the ratio of nutrients a plant uptakes but that would still be limited to what nutrients are in the environment the miccrohiza has access to.
Do miccrohiza supply potassium to orchid plants?

K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu... are elements and cannot be manufactured (except maybe in a nuclear reactor or collidor from some other elements). Phosphate (oxidized P) is a basic cellular currency for energy so phosphate generally gets moved around as phosphate too.

Fungi are the worlds great decomposers especially with bacteria. There is no shortage of viable bacterial and fungal interactions between dead plant or animal material and transfer of that breakdown/recycling with living things (orchids or anything else). Its all food chain stuff.

Not that long ago in Orchids Mag there was an article about germinating and growing orchids from seed using nothing but peat moss as substrate. The author made little gelatin (no fert added) balls of orchid seed and specific mycorrihzae inoculants, and simply set onto damp peat moss. Great germination and growth.

All nutrients supplied by the fungus breaking down the peat moss and transferring to the orchid embryo. Peat moss (dead sphagnum moss) has enough NPKCaMg.....to supply orchids at that age/size without adding external nutrients. But requires the fungus to chew it down to a transferable portion.

 

[TyroneGenade]

That's funny. As an aquatic toxicologist that's all I do for a living too, and spend half of every day plugging mortality data into stat programs for analysis.:wink:

Cool. That sounds pretty convincing for survival data. I do aging/anti-aging interventions so I like control groups rather than end-stage intervention. But you data sounds pretty convincing for: K-lite stopped my plants from dying.

Thanks for sharing the data.

 

[Rick]

Cool. That sounds pretty convincing for survival data. I do aging/anti-aging interventions so I like control groups rather than end-stage intervention. But you data sounds pretty convincing for: K-lite stopped my plants from dying.

Thanks for sharing the data.

Yup, in 2001 if I had started this hobby as a K lite project it would have had controls. Who knew it would take me 10 years before I thought of it.

I poked through my TM records a bit more to look at 5 year mortality since the first flasks showed up in 2003

2003 = 100%
2004 = 99.3 % (out of 300 seedlings:sob
2005 = 97%
2006 = 92.3%
2007 = 88% (only 25 seedlings anyway)
2008 = 74.5%
2009 = 27.2% (although only at year 4 though)
2010 = 20% (of 50 seedlings)
2011 = 0%
2012/2013 = 0% (except for that anomalous death pot).

The other thing to consider is those handful of single survivors from 2004 - 2006 were ugly/mangy, and really turned around after low K. Some had never bloomed until 2012. But that's only N of 6-10 of those >5year survivors.

 

[Bjorn]

Wow, its amazing that you did not give up Rick! So many mortalities! Then my two cents; I know (from chemical analyses) that bark normally contains a lot of nutrients, one example is calcium, would it not be possible that much of the orchid feed came from decomposing bark possibly aided by mycorhirza and supplied by lichen etc? Have to look up the analyses when back in office.

 

[Rick]

Wow, its amazing that you did not give up Rick! So many mortalities! Then my two cents; I know (from chemical analyses) that bark normally contains a lot of nutrients, one example is calcium, would it not be possible that much of the orchid feed came from decomposing bark possibly aided by mycorhirza and supplied by lichen etc? Have to look up the analyses when back in office.

I do get high points for persistence in my work performance reviews

But it also makes a difference that the majority of those flasks are free in the Troy Meyers programn.oke: But I really did take a serious break in 2007 to reasess.

Yes leaf litter/bark/moss all have lots of Ca, and everyone still adds oyster shell or lime!! But as long as K is in excess, the plants will not be able to extract it from any source.

I do not add any lime based materials to my mixes any more