How long do orchids live?

[estación seca]

Epiphytes might not be as nutrient-deprived as people think. More and more plants are being found to grow in association with nitrogen-fixing organisms like cyanobacteria (blue-green algae.) Many cacti do. Perhaps orchids?

[Leafmite]

They live until you kill them.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by SilverShaded

I dont think in-situ nutrients is a problem, most of the nutrients arrive with the rain, falling leaves, ant poop, deer poop etc,

Take these guys in the tree as an example, no nutrients up there and there never was, except what drops on them. They will however die when the tree falls in the next year or two...

Silver shaded; I was wondering if that tree is in a botanical garden somewhere, and the Paphs were planted on it, or if that is a wild tree with wild orchids, placed there 'by nature'? Also, what kind of paphs are those? Thanks!

[Whimgrinder]

My specimen of SLC. Jewel Box 'Dark Waters' was gifted to me in the late 1980's and I was told by the donor that it was a division of the clone from before it had been meristemmed. The cross was made by Stewart in 1962.

I have given away many pieces of this plant in the +- 27 years I have had it. Three years ago when it was just about to explode out of its container, it peaked with 85 blooms on it, if I remember correctly. (I have since cut it into four pieces and given away three, so its nowhere near as large right now)

[SilverShaded]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

Silver shaded; I was wondering if that tree is in a botanical garden somewhere, and the Paphs were planted on it, or if that is a wild tree with wild orchids, placed there 'by nature'? Also, what kind of paphs are those? Thanks!

These are entirely natural in a rainforest at 1500m altitude.

P. villosum.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

Originally Posted by estación seca

Epiphytes might not be as nutrient-deprived as people think. More and more plants are being found to grow in association with nitrogen-fixing organisms like cyanobacteria (blue-green algae.) Many cacti do. Perhaps orchids?

Rain water in asia, in a similar fashion to rainwater in south america, contains weak fertiliser. In the case of south america its picked up from a dry lake bed in the sahara desert and carried over to south america, (actually southern spain also recieves a good amount of nutrients from the same source). For far east asia its picked from the gobi desert.

If the long forgotten Sahara monsoon ever re-starts, brazil might find itself with a less fertile forest.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

I've allways found this phaelenopsis interesting from a fertilizer point of view, its growing in a temporary river bed and regularly submerged. (daily in the wet season). So any fertilization is essentially from rain water and nothing else.


Just to show its not a fluke, most of this species grow like that,

[Whimgrinder]

Rainwater cannot glean any dissolved nutrients from its source (lake, River, ocean, etc), it gets it from the atmosphere as drops form, and Nitrogen (in the form of Nitrate) is the main plant nutrient present in rainwater. However, in most tests conducted, the concentration of Nitrate was quite low and represented only about ten percent of what most plants require for normal growth.

I expect a lot more nutrient is picked up by water as it percolates down through the forest canopy, picking up decomposition products and solubles from animal and insect wastes.

[SilverShaded]

Originally Posted by Whimgrinder

Rainwater cannot glean any dissolved nutrients from its source (lake, River, ocean, etc), it gets it from the atmosphere as drops form, and Nitrogen (in the form of Nitrate) is the main plant nutrient present in rainwater. However, in most tests conducted, the concentration of Nitrate was quite low and represented only about ten percent of what most plants require for normal growth.

I expect a lot more nutrient is picked up by water as it percolates down through the forest canopy, picking up decomposition products and solubles from animal and insect wastes.

This isn't quite true, dust is picked by wind from dried lake deposits in certain parts of the Sahara, this is known to significantly add to the fertilization of parts of southern europe and south america.

[Whimgrinder]

Originally Posted by SilverShaded

[/COLOR]I've allways found this phaelenopsis interesting from a fertilizer point of view, its growing in a temporary river bed and regularly submerged. (daily in the wet season). So any fertilization is essentially from rain water and nothing else

I imagine that by the time precipitation is in a river or stream, it's picking up a lot of solids and dissolved minerals, so at that point it's got a lot more in it than it did before it hit the ground. Much the same as your Sahara example. Right?

[SilverShaded]

Originally Posted by Whimgrinder

I imagine that by the time precipitation is in a river or stream, it's picking up a lot of solids and dissolved minerals, so at that point it's got a lot more in it than it did before it hit the ground. Much the same as your Sahara example. Right?

Think of it this way, without a continuous input of, for example, phosphorous from Saharan dust, phosphorus levels in the amazon would have declined to very low levels by leaching out into the ocean. Currently the amount leached out is roughly in balance with that supplied by the dust. Its roughly in equilibrium.



With the phal example above, it's a sandstone flat topped escarpment, theres no minerals to pick up.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Well of course nutrients enter lake, river, etc. water from their environments. All of the fish, amphibians, turtles, decomposing algae, contribute nitrogen and other nutrients to the water. Nutrients are perpetually cycled between the atmosphere, soil, water, vegetation and animals.