Post by joeelliott on Feb 15, 2016 15:25:59 GMT -5
I didn't want to derail Roraima's nepenthes seedling thread but my question touches on the later posts (insectivorous vs waste). We have all been taught that carnivorous plants grow in nutrient poor soils and as such cannot handle large amounts of nutrients. Why do we assume this? I am not challenging the nutrient poor soil for neps but I am challenging the low nutrient uptake. If you look at our temperate forests you will see large layers of leaf litter and other compostable organic matter in a nice nutrient rich layer on top that, with the help of a host of critters and bacteria, is broken down into key elements/nutrients. Warmer soils such as those found the warmer parts of North America and Europe contain much less organic matter and have fewer nutrients than northern soils because the microorganisms, whose metabolic rates increase with the temperature, are more active, so they digest new organic matter almost as fast as it is deposited. Moist warm tropical soils hold fewer nutrients. Nutrients in these areas are mainly held by living plants; as soon as vegetation dies, bacteria and other micro-life feast and render the nutrients water-soluble. They are absorbed into the soil and almost immediately taken up by the roots of higher living plants.
You can't expect me to to believe that our northern forests have more leaves etc to shed and decompose than a rain forest. If you look just at the size of the trees themselves and ignore all of the under growth; trees don't get that large with a lack of nutrients. Add in the undergrowth and you have a huge amount of nutrients being held. The point I am leading to is where did we get the notion that neps need to be given only minute amounts of nutrients (or none at all) when we water? The whole idea of pouring coffee into your neps as the sole source of any fertilizer and expecting a perfectly healthy plant to come out of it is odd. That said, i understand that because there is little nutrients in the soil that the roots cannot handle large amounts of fertilizer without burning or the salts building up on the roots. We don't have the rain (normally) in our houses that will allow excess nutrients to be washed away but fertilizing the plants works, they grow stronger and healthier if they have all they need. Synthetic fertilizers can and do burn the roots and leaves of all sorts of plants if given in doses that are not appropriate but why do we not use things like worm castings as a part of our potting materials? Could worm castings not work as a top dressing? They would slowly leach nutrients as we water over top of them. Or if we look at the diet of shrews for N. lowii, their droppings would be nutrient rich as well and would dissolve/decompose quickly in the fluid of a pitcher.
I realize that we tell people generally to not fertilize cps because the average person will look at a bottle of miracle grow and think that if one teaspoon per gallon is good 2 must be better but why don't we tell people instead to buy orchid specific fertilizer (since it is generally better for plants that are sensitive to cheaper ingredients like urea) and use it at half strength? I am not trying to paint everyone with the same brush because there are people who do advocate using fertilizer with cps in a controlled manner; however the community as a whole has created a fear for people about keeping carnivorous plants. It is the same fear that the orchid community has created. I know plenty of elderly ladies with houses full of plants that you or I would be envious of that are afraid to try and grow an orchid because "orchids are very touchy". Truth is that they are not all that hard, in fact I don't see any difference between orchids and standard tropicals as far as growing conditions are concerned. There are some exceptions of course, but I wouldn't recommend the plants that need extreme growing conditions in the first place.
Long story short I think we need to rethink the way we are handing out information to the public and other hobbyists. We tend to hedge our information on the side of caution and spread info that while not necessarily false, isn't entirely true either.
I won't extend my reasoning to plants like Sarrs and VFT since bogs are a completely different creature. The water is acidic, cold, low in oxygen, and constantly moving which greatly slows down the decomposition of nutrients. And in the case of Oligotrophic bogs not only is the soil nutrient poor but the ground water is as well. I will point out though that bogs are nutrient poor, not completely devoid of nutrients.
I won't ramble on anymore but do look forward to more discussion on this.
You can't expect me to to believe that our northern forests have more leaves etc to shed and decompose than a rain forest. If you look just at the size of the trees themselves and ignore all of the under growth; trees don't get that large with a lack of nutrients. Add in the undergrowth and you have a huge amount of nutrients being held. The point I am leading to is where did we get the notion that neps need to be given only minute amounts of nutrients (or none at all) when we water? The whole idea of pouring coffee into your neps as the sole source of any fertilizer and expecting a perfectly healthy plant to come out of it is odd. That said, i understand that because there is little nutrients in the soil that the roots cannot handle large amounts of fertilizer without burning or the salts building up on the roots. We don't have the rain (normally) in our houses that will allow excess nutrients to be washed away but fertilizing the plants works, they grow stronger and healthier if they have all they need. Synthetic fertilizers can and do burn the roots and leaves of all sorts of plants if given in doses that are not appropriate but why do we not use things like worm castings as a part of our potting materials? Could worm castings not work as a top dressing? They would slowly leach nutrients as we water over top of them. Or if we look at the diet of shrews for N. lowii, their droppings would be nutrient rich as well and would dissolve/decompose quickly in the fluid of a pitcher.
I realize that we tell people generally to not fertilize cps because the average person will look at a bottle of miracle grow and think that if one teaspoon per gallon is good 2 must be better but why don't we tell people instead to buy orchid specific fertilizer (since it is generally better for plants that are sensitive to cheaper ingredients like urea) and use it at half strength? I am not trying to paint everyone with the same brush because there are people who do advocate using fertilizer with cps in a controlled manner; however the community as a whole has created a fear for people about keeping carnivorous plants. It is the same fear that the orchid community has created. I know plenty of elderly ladies with houses full of plants that you or I would be envious of that are afraid to try and grow an orchid because "orchids are very touchy". Truth is that they are not all that hard, in fact I don't see any difference between orchids and standard tropicals as far as growing conditions are concerned. There are some exceptions of course, but I wouldn't recommend the plants that need extreme growing conditions in the first place.
Long story short I think we need to rethink the way we are handing out information to the public and other hobbyists. We tend to hedge our information on the side of caution and spread info that while not necessarily false, isn't entirely true either.
I won't extend my reasoning to plants like Sarrs and VFT since bogs are a completely different creature. The water is acidic, cold, low in oxygen, and constantly moving which greatly slows down the decomposition of nutrients. And in the case of Oligotrophic bogs not only is the soil nutrient poor but the ground water is as well. I will point out though that bogs are nutrient poor, not completely devoid of nutrients.
I won't ramble on anymore but do look forward to more discussion on this.