Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Susan Erickson wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:48:02 -0400, Rob Halgren wrote: J Fortuna wrote: That said, I've tried it both ways often enough to know that a secondary blooming can really stress a plant. I had a large white phal in a 8 inch pot with a considerable number of leaves. Note the had. I just let it bloom until it died. This was years ago and I did not realize it was going down hill but when it quit blooming after 18 months there was no strength left to live. i have a golden peoker daughter that's been blooming on two spikes since march of '03. plant seems fat and happy; just grew a nice big new leaf. one spike has 2 flowers left, *may* be trying to do a keiki thing, and looks like it might try to branch. the other spike lost its last flower the other day. i was going to leave it alone, but reading this is making me nervous, so i compromised and cut the flowerless spike off (time for Experiments in Stem Propagation ; am watching the other one. if it tries to branch a flower spike, i'll cut that branch off, but i want to see what the itty bitty green things are, to see if they'll develop into anything. --j_a, fingers crossed... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Susan Erickson wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:48:02 -0400, Rob Halgren wrote: J Fortuna wrote: That said, I've tried it both ways often enough to know that a secondary blooming can really stress a plant. I had a large white phal in a 8 inch pot with a considerable number of leaves. Note the had. I just let it bloom until it died. This was years ago and I did not realize it was going down hill but when it quit blooming after 18 months there was no strength left to live. i have a golden peoker daughter that's been blooming on two spikes since march of '03. plant seems fat and happy; just grew a nice big new leaf. one spike has 2 flowers left, *may* be trying to do a keiki thing, and looks like it might try to branch. the other spike lost its last flower the other day. i was going to leave it alone, but reading this is making me nervous, so i compromised and cut the flowerless spike off (time for Experiments in Stem Propagation ; am watching the other one. if it tries to branch a flower spike, i'll cut that branch off, but i want to see what the itty bitty green things are, to see if they'll develop into anything. --j_a, fingers crossed... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Xi Wang wrote in message ...
Besides, if you leave the spike, you might just get some keikis. Never know. I know the advice to cut off spent spikes to 'conserve the strength' of a plant represents the wisdom of generations, but it doesn't correspond very well to my recent experience with phals or to my own humble opinion of biology. A previous poster urged us to think of what happens in nature but my conclusions are somewhat different: the flowers are long lived and wilt as soon as pollinated so the strategy must be to persist until a (possibly infrequent) pollination event occurs. If weather, passing wildlife or other hazards of life in the wild damage the flowers, it may make sense for the plant to sprout another branch off what's left of the spike. Presumably there's some regulatory mechanism that only allows this if the plant can afford it (admittedly this may be partly bred out in domesticated varieties). What is the metabolic cost of a flower spike? Well obviously it is a bunch of growth that doesn't photosynthesise much, but it doesn't weigh more than a big bunch of aerial roots such as phals often have and no one worries about those sapping the life of the plant. On my office windowsill for example I have an unidentified white phal in a 5 inch pot, originally bought in bloom but spent from a florist for 50 pence. It has been in bloom most of the time since. Currently it has 8 open flowers and couple buds coming on branch from a spike that first came up in october and had 10 flowers. Since that time there has also grown a new leaf bigger than the previous ones and a new, thicker flower spike that's shooting up a quarter inch a day. Will I chop off any presentable flowers or even any nodes that might sprout more? Phals are pretty vigorous growers and normally what you want is maximum flower enjoyment. If you're grooming the plant for exhibition or something your mileage may be different, but I'm a convert to squeezing out the maximum flowers. Leo |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Xi Wang wrote in message ...
Besides, if you leave the spike, you might just get some keikis. Never know. I know the advice to cut off spent spikes to 'conserve the strength' of a plant represents the wisdom of generations, but it doesn't correspond very well to my recent experience with phals or to my own humble opinion of biology. A previous poster urged us to think of what happens in nature but my conclusions are somewhat different: the flowers are long lived and wilt as soon as pollinated so the strategy must be to persist until a (possibly infrequent) pollination event occurs. If weather, passing wildlife or other hazards of life in the wild damage the flowers, it may make sense for the plant to sprout another branch off what's left of the spike. Presumably there's some regulatory mechanism that only allows this if the plant can afford it (admittedly this may be partly bred out in domesticated varieties). What is the metabolic cost of a flower spike? Well obviously it is a bunch of growth that doesn't photosynthesise much, but it doesn't weigh more than a big bunch of aerial roots such as phals often have and no one worries about those sapping the life of the plant. On my office windowsill for example I have an unidentified white phal in a 5 inch pot, originally bought in bloom but spent from a florist for 50 pence. It has been in bloom most of the time since. Currently it has 8 open flowers and couple buds coming on branch from a spike that first came up in october and had 10 flowers. Since that time there has also grown a new leaf bigger than the previous ones and a new, thicker flower spike that's shooting up a quarter inch a day. Will I chop off any presentable flowers or even any nodes that might sprout more? Phals are pretty vigorous growers and normally what you want is maximum flower enjoyment. If you're grooming the plant for exhibition or something your mileage may be different, but I'm a convert to squeezing out the maximum flowers. Leo |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Leo wrote:
I know the advice to cut off spent spikes to 'conserve the strength' of a plant represents the wisdom of generations, but it doesn't correspond very well to my recent experience with phals or to my own humble opinion of biology. A previous poster urged us to think of what happens in nature but my conclusions are somewhat different: the flowers are long lived and wilt as soon as pollinated so the strategy must be to persist until a (possibly infrequent) pollination event occurs. If weather, passing wildlife or other hazards of life in the wild damage the flowers, it may make sense for the plant to sprout another branch off what's left of the spike. Presumably there's some regulatory mechanism that only allows this if the plant can afford it (admittedly this may be partly bred out in domesticated varieties). What is the metabolic cost of a flower spike? Well obviously it is a bunch of growth that doesn't photosynthesise much, but it doesn't weigh more than a big bunch of aerial roots such as phals often have and no one worries about those sapping the life of the plant. Leo, As a biologist, I would have to agree with the sentiment of your post, but I think you underestimate domestication. Yes, there is (has to be) some regulatory mechanism that has evolved to limit the blooming capacity of the phalaenopsis. It does make logical sense, assuming that these plants are perennial and have evolved to bloom over many years, although a single sucessful pollination event and seed distribution would ensure evolutionary 'success' in the strictest sense. An inflorescence is a substantial metabolic cost to produce, and perhaps less to maintain, but reblooming a spike invokes the 'production cost' more frequently. Seed production is expensive, very expensive, if we let it get that far. Also, it may look like the mature flowers are not doing anything, but they are respiring (consuming sugars that the green parts must make) and transpiring (releasing water that the roots must uptake). If they aren't doing those two things they are dead, and none of us want that. They aren't contributing much, and they are costing at least a little. Presumably, based on collective experience, a healthy happy plant has little trouble paying the bills. However, we aren't growing these plants in their native environment. Environmental stimuli which might serve to limit blooming may not exist in the typical windowsill. More importantly, we have spent a hundred years breeding the limiting capacity out of the genus. Generations of orchid breeders have selected for free blooming, long blooming, and large (more 'metabolically expensive') flowers. Ease of bloom is probably one of the most important characteristics, and if breeders have done their job the plants should be too genetically stupid (to coin a phrase that needs coining) to know when to stop blooming. This is a good thing for orchid growers (sellers, anyway). If we were growing species orchids on trees in SE Asia, then there wouldn't really be an issue. Interesting thoughts though. I'd never really considered it before. And I may have falsely considered it just now... Rob -- Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren 1) There is always room for one more orchid 2) There is always room for two more orchids 2a. See rule 1 3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase more orchids, obtain more credit LittlefrogFarm is open - e-mail me for a list ) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Leo wrote:
I know the advice to cut off spent spikes to 'conserve the strength' of a plant represents the wisdom of generations, but it doesn't correspond very well to my recent experience with phals or to my own humble opinion of biology. A previous poster urged us to think of what happens in nature but my conclusions are somewhat different: the flowers are long lived and wilt as soon as pollinated so the strategy must be to persist until a (possibly infrequent) pollination event occurs. If weather, passing wildlife or other hazards of life in the wild damage the flowers, it may make sense for the plant to sprout another branch off what's left of the spike. Presumably there's some regulatory mechanism that only allows this if the plant can afford it (admittedly this may be partly bred out in domesticated varieties). What is the metabolic cost of a flower spike? Well obviously it is a bunch of growth that doesn't photosynthesise much, but it doesn't weigh more than a big bunch of aerial roots such as phals often have and no one worries about those sapping the life of the plant. Leo, As a biologist, I would have to agree with the sentiment of your post, but I think you underestimate domestication. Yes, there is (has to be) some regulatory mechanism that has evolved to limit the blooming capacity of the phalaenopsis. It does make logical sense, assuming that these plants are perennial and have evolved to bloom over many years, although a single sucessful pollination event and seed distribution would ensure evolutionary 'success' in the strictest sense. An inflorescence is a substantial metabolic cost to produce, and perhaps less to maintain, but reblooming a spike invokes the 'production cost' more frequently. Seed production is expensive, very expensive, if we let it get that far. Also, it may look like the mature flowers are not doing anything, but they are respiring (consuming sugars that the green parts must make) and transpiring (releasing water that the roots must uptake). If they aren't doing those two things they are dead, and none of us want that. They aren't contributing much, and they are costing at least a little. Presumably, based on collective experience, a healthy happy plant has little trouble paying the bills. However, we aren't growing these plants in their native environment. Environmental stimuli which might serve to limit blooming may not exist in the typical windowsill. More importantly, we have spent a hundred years breeding the limiting capacity out of the genus. Generations of orchid breeders have selected for free blooming, long blooming, and large (more 'metabolically expensive') flowers. Ease of bloom is probably one of the most important characteristics, and if breeders have done their job the plants should be too genetically stupid (to coin a phrase that needs coining) to know when to stop blooming. This is a good thing for orchid growers (sellers, anyway). If we were growing species orchids on trees in SE Asia, then there wouldn't really be an issue. Interesting thoughts though. I'd never really considered it before. And I may have falsely considered it just now... Rob -- Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren 1) There is always room for one more orchid 2) There is always room for two more orchids 2a. See rule 1 3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase more orchids, obtain more credit LittlefrogFarm is open - e-mail me for a list ) |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
First lawn, first post. In need of advice.... | Lawns | |||
Advice on pruning flowering cherry please. | United Kingdom | |||
Newbie asks - How to post anonymously to newsgroups ? | Ponds | |||
Newbie advice post-flowering | Orchids | |||
Post Your Three Favorite Movies - I Post Facts About You | Gardening |