Phal Spikes: To Cut of Not...

[zxyqu]

Wow. Can I get the citation on that paper. Was this study based on potting them or mounting. I would guess aerial roots may serve more or a purpose on mounts, but could easily see them be
more important in bracing against a tree. Good find undergrounder!

[Undergrounder]

Originally Posted by zxyqu

Wow. Can I get the citation on that paper. Was this study based on potting them or mounting. I would guess aerial roots may serve more or a purpose on mounts, but could easily see them be
more important in bracing against a tree. Good find undergrounder!

Sure

The study looked at both i think, but it was more to do with roots that aren't being used for support i think.

I didn't realise it was as old as it is.

The Role of the Velamen of the Aerial Roots of Orchids
Augustus M. Dycus and Lewis Knudson
Botanical Gazette, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Dec., 1957), pp. 78-87
(article consists of 10 pages)
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[orchidsamore]

Aerial roots are an issue with potted plants only.

In nature the Phalaenopsis live attached to tree branches. The plant grows out and down. The roots are genetically inclined to grow up, that is where the branch is supposed to be.

When you mount a Phal naturally hanging down the roots will all grow up and attach to the mount. there will not be any aerial roots.

There is never the problem of crown rot since there is no crown to hold water when it points down.

Most surprising is that hanging down the Phals can take very high light levels.

Light is never a problem with orchids, they like all you can give them. The problem is the heat that comes with the sun. As the heat builds up it kills the chlorophyll in the leaf, we call it burn.

Well the side of the leaf that faces the sun naturally has no chlorophyll. I grow mine with my Vanda and Cattleya.

It is only when we put them unnaturally in a pot upside down, that heat buildup becomes a problem. For a million years these orchids have had to survive with only light levels bouncing from the forest floor. As a result the bottom (top in a pot) has evolved to become super sensitive. Upside down in a pot they need very low light.

[annie1931]

Am still feeling my way around in here - asked somewhere if I could snip away some of the tangled roots that are all over the top of my pot - and some of the ones that resemble a snakepit in the humidifying water at the bottom. Have some really fat strong healthy roots going straight up. Are all those tangly rather withered ones vital ?

[ssbphal]

I always cut the spike at a diagonal above the 2nd node. More than 50% of the time the plant will send another spike from that node. It may happen within months or usually the next blooming season. Either way, if it turns brown cut it off. You really can't go wrong!

[quiltergal]

I agree with Undergrounder on this one. I have left spikes on before and cut to the next viable node and it has almost always sent out a secondary spike, however, the flower count and flower size is always smaller than when the spike bloomed initially. Not worth it for me. I cut all spikes now and allow the plant to recover and store up some energy for the next bloom cycle. The exception to this rule are some of the species Phals. particularly the summer bloomers. They seem to like to hang on to the old spike. These novelty Phals are sequential bloomers for the most part so having a big flush of blooms at once never happens anyway.

[b amateur]

I have phals,species and hybrids,potted and mounted,and have tried both techniques with mixed results both ways.As near as I can figure,individual plant vigor determines the results. I hope this doesn't muddy the issue.

[annie1931]

Speaking not as a scientist but as one who cuts the spike when the blooms have all fallen off, I have not found in the past a 'used' spike to ever produce another bloom afterward. My granddaughter left the spike on her orchid, it did nothing but gradually wither away to a dry hollow stick. I had no idea the spikes were capable of a second blooming - if I understood your post properly in the first place.

[zxyqu]

Well after lots of thinking, I've got to agree with Undergrounder, which shouldn't surprise anyone. It makes a great point, that spikes should be cut down completely for the best chances of a healthy orchid. Unless you're looking for a second round of blooming, or you've got a really healthy orchid with multiple spikes, I'd lean towards cutting them off as suggested.
Thanks to all the thoughts, sadly I'll have to do some other experiment instead. Maybe I can talk Ray into figuring out some way to put S/H to the test over sphag/bark? Who knows.

[orchidsamore]

There are many interesting studies out there.

How about how growing in very wet conditions is beneficial to Phals.

Frequency of Watering and the Growth of Phalaenopsis

But as to your original question, commercially we are always considering factors like these. With Phals the results are obvious. Secondary spikes are small with fewer flowers and smaller flowers. The plant then misses its normal blooming season.

Phals with secondary flowering are unsellable. They just look poor next to a new spike.

Commercially we must cut the spike. Actually we usually cut the flowers when they are in full bloom since they are already flowered out and can only be sold at big discounts even with perfect flowers.