|
|
Post by mrflytrap2 on Feb 5, 2009 9:57:01 GMT -10
This weekend I went out and got some coral chunks from the pet store. They only had the fine grade, but I figured I'd start there at least.
I have a N. Ventricosa that needs repotting, as it looks like the media is breaking down. It recently threw a basal, and shortly after, an upper leaf on the main fine went black for some reason. I think I'll let the plant sit with the coral sprinkled on the top for a few weeks and observe what it does. I currently feed bugs to the plants on the 1st and a seaweed fert on the 15th.
Lets see what happens...
-Nate
|
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on Feb 5, 2009 10:25:57 GMT -10
It's a start, but perhaps you could post a picture of this plant you call "N. ventricosa", my guess is that it's probably one of the many forms of the N.ventrata plants going around, some seem more closer to N. ventricosa or N. burkei , and all of them grow with hybrid vigor. The true N. ventricosa is actually very difficult, and does not produce pitchers easily or frequently, may even abort pitcher production for months, even years in prime conditions, and has been known to go for nearly a decade without producing a single flower spike. In fact, the only one I know of who has been able to get it to flower is Geoff Mansell in Qld. Australia of EP. The true species produces pitchers that average about 6 to 8 inches in length and can get as large as 12 inches or more. It is very woody, and very ventricose, stomach-like, tightly constricted in the center, like N. lowii. - Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by mrflytrap2 on Feb 5, 2009 20:59:02 GMT -10
I'm currently working on extracting recent photos of the ventricosa that I'm working with. However as of last winter these are the 3 "ventricosa" in my care. 1 is from BE, and the other 2 are from from the hardware store Lowes. The one I'm working with is in the upper left. It matches the behavior that you outlined above. This year it looks like crap, the main vine has declined, the basal is now taking over, growth as shown in the photo. But I'm starting to understand media in a different way, and I can tell it's servery breaking down. My currently rule of thumb is... Would I want to be buried in it, and could I breathe if I was. Last year I matched it with a very heavy peat based mixture, something I now feel was a mistake. I'm just curious if the coral will show any "spurt of growth" for this situation before I have to do a repotting. (Well I can't get google's Picasa to work in this forum so, if you care, just click on the link) picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/CpDm5mILzPRD5ZjOKnRMgg?authkey=-_T08uLJ0nQ&feat=directlinkI'm replacing my vent collecion with EP grown material, Victorian material, and a few seed grown varieties. But that's not really the point of the coral in this situation. I'll post a before and after photos once I get the chance. (BE is the one with the white tag) |
|
|
|
Post by unclemasa on Feb 5, 2009 21:15:36 GMT -10
Rich ..... something like this ...... ?   or this .... ?  Nate ... ;D I have often remarked, after mixing a new batch of potting mix, that "this is the material I would like to be buried in". |
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on Feb 6, 2009 5:11:47 GMT -10
Hey Nate, they look close, very close indeed. Over the years, I've had some that I was pretty sure was the real deal too, but after a few years, when growing them side by side to the "porcelain" form, (the ONLY true species in cultivation that I'm absolutely sure of), and with N. burkei, these plants seem closer to me to hybrids into those rather than N ventricosa.. One of the first things is the flat peristome, that doesn't curl downward onto the pitcher walls, nor do they come together, and rise up towards the lid, although they often overlap at their ends. I'm not even 100% sure if the so called "alba" form is the true species either, and the peristome on this plant does come together a little bit and rise upwards, like N burkei.. The other thing is the "feel" of the pitcher itself, which is very waxy, and even stiff and woody, also tightly constricted in the middle like N. lowii, and seems to produce pitchers with an average size of 6 to 8 inches, although I've seen very large plants at Longwood Gardens with pitchers that were about 12 inches long. Photographs from John Turnbull's trip through northern Luzon showed a large clump of them growing high in the canopy of some trees by a roadside and they all had pitchers that seemed to be about a foot long, and blood red, but the same flat peristome. Leaves are very slender and about a foot long, with leaf margins nearly parallel, with little or no petiole. I put my plant outside last summer and the pitchers went from a pale porcelain white to a solid blood red color with early morning sunlight. The other aspect is that these plants are very slow and reluctant in producing pitchers, and rarely flowers, and does not show even the slightest signs of hybrid vigor, while the others seem to grow like weeds, flower profusely, and grow from seedling stage to flowering size adults within 3 years. I have yet to see this porcelain form produce a flower, although it's been in Longwood for decades, and in various other collections for over 25+ years. To my knowledge, Geoff Mansel is the only one who has gotten it to produce a female flower, well after 10 years. The hybrid plants NEVER get much larger than 6 inches if that, usually 4 to 6 inches, and the angle of the operculum, the peristome is a bit more oblique. They are also totally intollerant of frosts, while the true species has been able to take a mild frost without even showing any signs of distress. - Rich  |
|
|
|
Post by mrflytrap2 on Mar 1, 2009 10:25:31 GMT -10
Well here you go, almost a month later from adding coral to my ventricosa.... I wanted to wait longer but, the plant needs to be repotted and I don't want it to root rot too long. You can see the basal that started, nice strong an healthy. The main vine has some issue with it, which I blamed on the media breaking down. I added coral to see what it'd do after reading this thread. Repotting needed syndrome continued, but it started a flower! Current plant.  The middle leaved randomly turning black on the main vine...  Soon to be flower, can't see it too well in the photo, but the texture of a flower is forming in the leaf.  |
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Mar 3, 2009 9:30:27 GMT -10
Floweringis a direct response to calcium in a media and have noticed that in some plants that bever flowered before. Although with N. ventricosa, they are winter bloomers so it could just be the seasonal timing. Although for me, it is usually Christmas period that they seem to flush wildly.
The coral media works best when mixed with media in the lower root zone section. I believe that the media in the wild has pockets of soil/humus in between coral base rock and when a seedling grows in this humus, it eventually reaches this coral/limestone bedrock. Then the plant takes on a different look as it grows. I have found that plants grown basic seem to be more resistant to the elements more so than a plant growing in an acid, or humus base mix.
I have seen photos or roots penetrating the coral/limestone bedrock even while the humus layer is eroded away from run off of water. These photos also show that roots have been exposed while being deeply embedded in the bedrock layer. This may also be a way that plants may have adapted to develop more tuberous roots for periodic wet/dry periods. If I am not mistaken, I believe all tuberous species are found from regions of basic media, either by way of coral-beach sand, or some limestone outcrop areas.
The offshoot seems to be content with this new media, at least for now. Checking to see how the roots cling to these coral will be a way to see if they have adapted for this new media type.
M
M
|
|
|
|
Post by marka on Mar 17, 2009 11:59:28 GMT -10
Could it be they the coral is adding sulphur and cerrtain trace elements? I think it has something like 40-50 trace elements in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Mar 17, 2009 14:54:48 GMT -10
I don't believe there is any sulphur in coral. Calcium carbonate yes.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by marka on Mar 17, 2009 20:18:17 GMT -10
Calcium carb is certainly the main mineral, but i think sulphur is there in the 2000 ppm range. Hard to find much in the way of a coral analysis though.
|
|
|
|
Post by idontlikeforms on Mar 18, 2009 9:23:02 GMT -10
|
|
|
|
Post by marka on Mar 20, 2009 12:21:04 GMT -10
So any growth improvements could be either the sulphur or the calcium or a combination of both and all the micro-nutrients.
As an aside, its been quite amusing to watch the price of sulphur rocket recently as its been used more and more to produce fertilisers to replace the sulphur that used to be provided by acid rain (in places that received moderate doses of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by idontlikeforms on Mar 21, 2009 7:58:54 GMT -10
The coral doesn't add large quantities of sulfur. Keep in mind that plants have heavy sulfur needs. Sulfur is a major not minor nutrient for plants. Coral is mostly calcium with all other minerals being present in minute quantities. Most of these trace elements, however, are used only in minute quantities. But sulfur is not one of those minerals that is used in only minute quantities.
As a side note, I do suspect that Nepenthes get a good amount of sulfur from prey, since plants keep most of their sulfur in amino acid form and Neps absorb and utilize whole amino acids from prey.
|
|
|
|
Post by marka on Mar 21, 2009 23:21:19 GMT -10
Given that Coral is approx 0.2wt% S and that lack of sulphur is a major growth inhibitor I don't think you can discount the possibility that the plants are taking in S from the coral as well as the calcium.
I agree some S is absorbed as amino acids, but it's not at all clear what happens to the S in the amino acids in the case were they are broken down completely and the plant is absorbing N as ammonia.
|
|
|
|
Post by idontlikeforms on Mar 23, 2009 1:41:24 GMT -10
Marka I'm not saying the Neps wouldn't be absorbing the sulfur from coral, I'm saying the amount is insignificant. Look at the analysis of the coral I posted. The ratio of calcium to sulfur in the coral is about 220 to 1. Sulfur is used by plants in slightly less amounts than calcium. Only to a limited extent can plants pick and choose what nutrients that are available in the soil to absorb. If the vast majority of nutrients that coral is leaching into the media is calcium, than that is what the Nep would be forced to absorb.
Heck a Nep probably would absorb more sulfur in gaseous form through its leaves than it would through its roots from some chunks of coral in its media.
And it really doesn't matter whether the Neps are breaking down the sulfur from amino acids because amino acids are how the vast majority of sulfur is stored in all plants anyways. In other words if they do break it down it would only be to put most of it right back into amino acid form.
|
|
