Terrestrial Orchid Forum

Transcontinental Genera :: RE: Calypso bulbosa

Author: berthold
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:10 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 21

this 8 months protocorms (12 mm) were transferred direct into Neudohum. Transfer into another sterile Gel medium had no success.

General European Orchids :: RE: Dactylorhiza Increasing stock by splitting

Author: larsb
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:05 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 1

I've heard about this before, but it is very good to see it illustrated. I've also read about as a method to increase Ophrys. I think I'll do an experiment on some Dactylorhiza this summer, just to try. In general, my Dactylorhiza multiply fine by themselves, but on other orchids it might be useful.

Kind regards
_________________
Lars

General Asian Orchids :: RE: Cephalanthera falcata

Author: kyushucalanthe
Subject: Re: Cephalanthera falcata
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:22 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

berthold wrote:

I was not successful with this species in Germany. The problem seems to be the same as with the european Ceph. damasonium and turkish Ceph. curdica.
All this species should have enough leave green to support themselves with power but they have no mechanism to protect themselves against "bad" fungi and microorganisms (so they rot). For that they need fungi partners. I thing if your are able to cultivate the plants in a very clean surrounding you shouldn't need the fungi. May be Neudohum is doing well also.

Greetings Bertholdii

Hey Berthold,

I can't claim that these are going to make it for the long term. Being native in the nearby mountains, I supposed they have a better chance of surviving. The soil fungi/bacteria are very aggressive in southern Japan and I've lost a number of plants to all kinds of rots including rhododendrons, numerous orchids (Pogonia for example is very prone), and roses. I don't use inorganic fertilizer in the open garden except in very dilute quantities and in very small volumes (usually from a bottle sprayer). I never use inorganic fertilizer on terrestrial orchids except for ones in pots, and then I use very mild dilutions. Plants in the outdoor beds are given only organic fertilizer, and with the exception of Calanthe, they get just a little.

Keeping the plants in a very clean environment is challenging in the out doors. I had a talk with Holger Perner about this and he feels that the use of fungicides on a routine basis is the best thing to do. He went so far as to say that if you don't use them eventually you will lose your plants to rot. Thoughts?

KCii

General Asian Orchids :: RE: Cephalanthera falcata

Author: berthold
Subject: Re: Cephalanthera falcata
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:18 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

kyushucalanthe wrote:

Here is the semi-saprophytic Cephalanthera falcata .

General Asian Orchids :: Cephalanthera falcata

Author: kyushucalanthe
Subject: Cephalanthera falcata
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:20 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

Here is the semi-saprophytic Cephalanthera falcata growing in my garden for two years now. The plants are grown without any additional fertilizing in order to keep the fungus populations in the soil stable. Humus from Japanese red pine forest (Pinus densifolia) was added when the bed was constructed to inoculate the soil with the the appropriate fungal symbiont.

So far, so good. The plant is no more vigorous than last year, but then again it is no weaker either. Nearby Cremastra appendiculata thrives after several years in cultivation. Maybe these semi-saprophytes aren't so difficult after all. I'll keep you posted...

Field trips :: RE: Sicily and Monte Gargano April 2008

Author: neil4768
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:50 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

Keith

I look forward in anticipation to you report in the HOS

Field trips :: RE: Sicily and Monte Gargano April 2008

Author: fred
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:06 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

Hi Keith,

looking forward to reading more about your stay in orchid-Valhalla (would you mind posting a few pictures ?). Don't let the motivation slip, an article on the Gargano & Sicily would make an excellent piece of reading on the HOS journal. A lot of people (including me) spend days searching for relevant tips for our orchid-hunts.

regards,
Fred

Field trips :: Sicily and Monte Gargano April 2008

Author: keithfry
Subject: Sicily and Monte Gargano April 2008
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:29 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

I have just returned from 10 fabulous days in Sicily and Monte Gargano and have seen literally millions of orchid plants of over 30 species. If anyone would like further information please contact me fry.keith@googlemail.com. I hope to write a short article for the HOS journal, motivation permitting.

General culture :: RE: Neudohum

Author: berthold
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:14 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 34

neil4768 wrote:

With the orchids that prefer a more free draining mixture (orchis, orphys) do you open the soil structure up with added grit?

I tested with a 50% Perlite mixture. The effect is that you reduce the nutrients not more. If you want turbo tubers take it straight.
The protection effect of the pure Neudohum stands for about 5 months. If you repot in October its good enough for the growing season until May, then I keep the plant completely dry and repot again in October.
The outdoor garden application of Neudohum is not yet tested well. That are completely different conditions. I am testing with 20% Neudohum and 80 % Perlite.

General culture :: RE: Neudohum

Author: neil4768
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:28 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 34

With the orchids that prefer a more free draining mixture (orchis, orphys) do you open the soil structure up with added grit? As I have a number orchis and orphys that I can do some experimentation on for next season.

General European Orchids :: Dactylorhiza Increasing stock by splitting

Author: neil4768
Subject: Dactylorhiza Increasing stock by splitting
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:46 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 1

Interesting article here

http://www.srgc.org.uk/bulblog/log2006/230806/log.html

and

http://www.srgc.org.uk/bulblog/log2006/131106/log.html

Mediteranean Orchids :: Orchis sancta

Author: berthold
Subject: Orchis sancta
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:48 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 0

still the main food at the salep market in Mugla, Turkey:

Region-based: EU and UK :: RE: dactylorizha spotted marsh orchid,swap

Author: SzPeter_hu
Subject: Re: dactylorizha spotted marsh orchid,swap
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:48 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 1

egretorchid wrote:

the odd congora orchid

you mean Gongora?

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: SzPeter_hu
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:41 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

berthold wrote:

Nearly all orchids with green leaves don't need fungi for alimentation. They are completely self supporting. Some need fungi for protection against bad fungi and microorganisms.

OK, so they don't risk death when they loose the symbiont. Then why do they risk loosing a good protection. That's still a great loss. And even if the plant is self-supporting, the fungus gives it additional energy which shouldn't be wasted even if it's not needed to survive.

And what if it only seems to you that the contact is lost between plant and fungus in symbiotic culture? The fungus may still be there hidden in the roots, maybe not as active as before. I replated well-grown seedlings of an epiphytic orchid (asymbiotic culture) to a medium with 20g/l sugar and with 7.5g/l sugar. All seedlings were green and had a few leaves. They were kept under 16h photoperiod. Seedlings on the 20g/l medium grow quickly, while all seedlings on the 7.5g/l medium died after a few weeks. So they weren't self-supporting at all. They depended on high amounts of external energy, no matter how green they were.

berthold wrote:

If you sow asymbiotic in vitro the orchid doesn't see a fungus in it's whole life.

That's not really true if you think about all the nutrients in the medium. In fact for the plants it seems that thea are in constant contact with their fungus: the medium itself is a simulation of the symbiont, an artificial copy of the real fungus if you like it that way. There are vitamins, amino acids, sugar and many other things that can not be found in the soil. For the seedling it surely seems as if a real fungus is there all the time, and the beneficial effects are all the same. When seedlings grow in asymbiotic culture it doesn't mean that they can live without a fungus and are self-supporting. They still depend in external help, and we do our best to make them belive that a symbiont is there.

fred wrote:

You could argue that the rotting remains sit close to the plant and eventually serves as fertiliser ...

If the plant has nutrients in a tuber, why would it release them into the soil for other plants to have, if it could keep it all for itself? Let us assume that you have a bag of gold coins and you go to sleep. Would you scatter the coins around your house thinking 'how good it will be next morning to find some remaining gold around, that others did not find during the night'? For my part I would keep my gold in my bag while I sleep to have them all for myself in the morning.

fred wrote:

Maybe I should drop the notion of the tuber as a seperate organ - if you look at it as an inflated root it makes more sense: roots drop annually, so the tuber should, too ... I can live with that.

If the tuber is a modified root, that doesn't mean it has to behave like a root since it is modified. It is different and it may behave differently, as part of its modified functions, if that is beneficial for the plant.

I think there must be some other reason for the rotting of the old tuber. I've been thinking about this, but I couldn't come up with anything logical. I could easily argue against all my ideas, so finally I thought that loosing the old tuber is a stupid thing and a great mistake for the part of the orchid. The size of one tuber is genetically coded and so it is maximized. After reaching the limit for the size of a tuber, the plant could only increase in strength if it could have more tubers. Having a few tubers from previous years and using them to store water could give better chance to survive the dry season. In nature many plants do not flower every year because they're not strong enough. If they had 'more room' to store nutrients than one tuber only at a time, they could gather some extra starch in a good season and use it later to flower in a bad season. Surrendering this possibility doesn't seem to be logical to me.

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: berthold
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:30 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

combadao wrote:

the number of tubers? Why they do not increase, for the majority of the species? Is that a nutrient limitation perhaps?
..

It is a vegetative propagation and that has the known advantages and disadvantages against generative propagation. Each species has to find out the correct equilibrium between this two technics for optimal surviving.
The multi tuber production of the true tuber orchids brings the additional problem that the soil structure in the close vicinity of the plant will be destroyed. The longer root offshoot technic of Dactylorhiza iberica is the better way in that point.

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: fred
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:22 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

Peter: I was indeed contradicting myself now I re-read it. The faster the tuber is consumed, the less my imaginary mechanism is useful.

SzPeter_hu wrote:

They grow to the same size every year only to die back and never to become bigger or stronger. Surely there must be an explanation...

Puzzling me as well ... my tuberous Araceae keep the same tuber, sucking it empty when the season starts and blowing it bigger for dormancy. The question here is why these plants "waste" the energy they put in making a new tuber when they have one sitting there. You could argue that the rotting remains sit close to the plant and eventually serves as fertiliser ... but aborting a tuber to make a new one can be seen as risky business. Maybe I should drop the notion of the tuber as a seperate organ - if you look at it as an inflated root it makes more sense: roots drop annually, so the tuber should, too ... I can live with that

Berthold: I'm glad you emphasized that the fungus is "optional". I sometimes need to be reminded of that.

This still left me with the last point: do all myco-heterotrophic lack a tuber ? Here's the answer:

Aphyllorchis caudata, prainii, unguiculata
Corallorhiza maculata, mertensiana, striata, striata var. vreelandii, trifida, wisteriana
Cymbidium macrorhizon - not even a pseudobulb (in culture, btw )
Cyrtosia javanica Flora of Taiwan
Cystorchis aphylla
Didymoplexis pallens - fleshy rhizome
Cephalanthera austinae
Epipogium, aphyllum, roseum
Eulophia zolingeri - underground pseudobulbs (!)
Galeola nudifolia, septentrionalis
Gastrodia confusa, elata, lacista, nipponica, procera, pubilabiata, sesamoides, siamensis
Hexalectris nitida, spicata, spicata, warnockii
Lecanorchis (thick roots and a vertical rhizome) nigricans, trachycaula, trachycaula
Limodorum abortivum, trabutianum
Neottia nidus-avis
Pterostylis has a few myco-heterotrophs -> genus is tuberous
Rhizanthella gardneri, slateri
Stereosandra javanica -> elongated tuber of several short, swollen internodes
Stigmatodactylus sikokianus ... not much to be found on this
Wullschlaegelia calcarata -> tuberous roots
Yoania amagiensis, japonica

Introduction :: RE: hi from Portugal

Author: combadao
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:49 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

Thanks Fred

by the way, my name is Jaime.

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: combadao
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:33 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

And what about the maintenance on the number of tubers? Why they do not increase, for the majority of the species? Is that a nutrient limitation perhaps?

although we have the case of Ophrys bombylifera that makes several each year...

Introduction :: RE: hi from Portugal

Author: fred
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:13 am (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

Hi combadao,

welcome to the forum. A gradual increase in interest in terrestrials ... the signs of a future addict. The yellow Ophrys is a species apart, hopefully this year I'll see one in habitat for the first time

regards,
Fred

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: berthold
Subject: Re: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:57 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

SzPeter_hu wrote:

fred wrote:

- why do our orchids loose their tuber and roots during dormancy in the
first place?

That's a good question indeed! If the old roots die, the fungus is lost. What if there would be no fungus in the soil the following year? The orchid would surely die, since it has let all its fungal partners go to waste with the old roots. I always wondered why the plant takes that risk...

the answer is easy. Nearly all orchids with green leaves don't need fungi for alimentation. They are completely self supporting. Some need fungi for protection against bad fungi and microorganisms (Cephalanthera damasonium probably).
The Mycorrhiza fungus B1 I am operating with in symbiotic germination looses contact to the seedling some months after germination. From that time on the plant proceeds self supporting.
If you sow asymbiotic in vitro the orchid doesn't see a fungus in it's whole life.

Mycorrhizal Culture :: RE: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap

Author: SzPeter_hu
Subject: Re: Bridging the mycorrhizal winter-gap
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:18 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 6

fred wrote:

The question I have is this: is it possible that the decay of the old tuber or
roots (in case of non-tuberous species) is in fact due to a "deliberate"
sacrifice by the orchid (amputation of an organic reserve) to maintain a
local colony of mycorrhizal fungi to span the resting period until the growth
of new roots ?

Dear Fred, you're such a philosopher! I really mean it. Much the same things have been lurking in my mind, and now I can't resist but gather all my thoughts and reply to your brilliant thought-provoking lines. I think, that in part you yourself answer your question, because the answer is there in them:

fred wrote:

- I'm probably not the first who is amazed by the rate at which dead tubers and roots are consumed.

If the old tuber rots at such an amazing speed, how could it supply a local colony of fungus throughout the long resting period? Nutrients are transported to the new tuber, and all that is left in the old one, will be consumed within a matter of weeks. Than there will be nothing to help the fungus to survive.

Moreover you should read about the process of infection, digestion of pelotons, and reinfection: Not all infected cells digest the fungus, only the ones in the middle of the root. In the outside layer of root cells, and also in the root tip just behind the growing tissue, the fungus can live unharmed. From the surface cells the fungus can reinfect the deeper tissues again and again. So a living root will always be a reservoir of fungus. If the root dies, the symbiont is lost.

fred wrote:

- why do our orchids loose their tuber and roots during dormancy in the
first place?

fred wrote:

- have there been attempts in isolating the fungus from decaying roots and
tubers? All data I find focusses on live roots, root-tips and seed baiting.

As I said, the good fungus can be found in the surface cells of living roots and especially in the root tips. That's why all studies focus on these parts. When the tuber dies and rots away there's no control over the infection any more. All kinds of things from the soil are then unleashed, and they join the feast to consume the tuber. How could you find the symbiont in such a chaos?

fred wrote:

In other words: by sacrificing the previous tuber or a subset of the roots,
the orchid creates a niche where the fungal activity is allowed to flourish. I
imagine that this would greatly increase the chance of contacting the partner when growth restarts.

All this told, I do not think that the old tuber is a sacrifice for the fungus.

I have read an article about orchids growing in a forest always near a certain species of tree (Salix repens as I remember). Since the orchid roots died every year, they could not keep the symbiont for next year, but lost it during every dormancy period. The fungus could only be kept alive in roots that were also alive, and these were the roots of the Salix. The orchids could live only near these trees since they needed them to supply the fungus for next years' growth. If the old roots and tubers could survive, the orchids could have spread through the entire forest and would not be dependent on Salix trees.

Why do the old parts die? An epiphytic orchid can keep all its old pseudobulbs and use them as water reserves in following years. This way it will grow stronger and stronger and after some years it will become a great colony. Why can't terrestrial species behave like this? They grow to the same size every year only to die back and never to become bigger or stronger. Surely there must be an explanation...

Introduction :: hi from Portugal

Author: combadao
Subject: hi from Portugal
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:55 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 2

hi, I'm from Amora, near Lisbon.

I have orchids for some years, but now I'm beginning to increase (slowly) the terrestrial fraction. until now, I was more of an observer of "portuguese orchids" in nature than anything else.

although common, my preferred orchid is Ophrys lutea.

great resource you have here, congrats.

In-Vitro :: RE: Help me with literature, please...

Author: combadao
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:50 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 4

Hi

Better still, use 'orchid propagation protocorm filetype:pdf', in that way what appears is only files in pdf format.

Open Forum & Feedback :: RE: "eco"-house modelled after Ophrys

Author: neil4768
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:12 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 1

Here is where it is http://www.lowermillestate.com/index.html

Open Forum & Feedback :: "eco"-house modelled after Ophrys

Author: fred
Subject: "eco"-house modelled after Ophrys
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:22 pm (GMT 1)
Topic Replies: 1

Hi all,

They're planning to build an "eco"-house based on the flowers of the genus Ophrys - the house will take three years to complete and has just been sold for �7.2 million.

The building is designed to be able to produce more energy than it requires: there's an underground heat pump, geothermal heating and cooling, rainwater and solar and wind power.

As with most eco-marketed crap this one suffers from a small contradiction as well: it's built in a nature reserve. Let's wait and see what this peacefull setting looks like after the builders were there for three years:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/24/eaecohome124.xml