Planting leggy transplants

[DirtMechanic]

Sorry I missed the text initially. Yeah, i understand what you are saying.

Endo and ectomorphic fungi..ok they are buzzwords.

Both need the service of a farmer, and the farmer is not a human being.

Thats hard to grasp

 

[headfullofbees]

But what starts the myco relationship? Mere presence to begin with? But what food source if the plant has access to acceptable nutrients already and does not provide support to the myco as a result? Myco ebbs away until a plant becomes stressed and puts out chemistry and sugars from the root to get them back?

Mere presence.
That relationship can be broken in a number of ways, by soil condition; e.g. too much phosphate in the soil, but plants do not have the option.
They are attacked by myco, but that attack is not enough to hurt the plant, because the carb provided by the plant is negligible, but the benefits, especially in times of stress, far outweigh the harm.

 

[headfullofbees]

So, Chuck, from what I've gathered, you don't have any evidence that deep-buried surface roots continue to work, you feel they do, so you may, or may not, sacrifice some precious growing season in order to have them, already having lost some to adverse weather; but, if, as you believe, they do, they do continue to work, they make your chosen water-stress management plan more difficult.
That's beneficial?

 

[Chuck]

So, Chuck, from what I've gathered, you don't have any evidence that deep-buried surface roots continue to work, you feel they do, so you may, or may not, sacrifice some precious growing season in order to have them, already having lost some to adverse weather; but, if, as you believe, they do, they do continue to work, they make your chosen water-stress management plan more difficult.
That's beneficial?

I wouldn't say beneficial. I'd say more realistic. But, about the deep-buried surface roots. Since they are the same as the top surface roots they must be feeder roots too correct? And what is something alive on a plant that has no function, does not work, yet it is there for no apparent purpose whatsoever. How can the plant justify its existence. I submit that it can't. A plant naturally gets rid of many injured or non-working parts during its lifespan. I.E. damaged/infected leaves, limbs, blooms etc. so why doesn't the plant get rid of those deep buried feeder roots that don't feed anything. Just let them slough off or shrivel up and fall off or something. I say that those roots are doing something are they wouldn't still be there.
One doesn't NEED a water stress management program to have a good crop. One has a water stress management program because he WANTS to produce more and if the program is unable to work for some reason such as weather so be it. He will still have a good crop.

 

[headfullofbees]

Tomatoes have no facility to shed deep-buried roots because they have no facility to grow them in the first place.

Flightless birds have wings.
Humans have an appendix.
Men have nipples.

Many double (or more) flowers (like dahlias for instance) are sterile, because their blooms replace sexual organs with more layers of petals or the petals block them. They have to be propagated by cuttings, or other means, but they still flower every year!
In order to do so they must divert energy from other parts of the plant, to no purpose.

 

[Chuck]

Tomatoes have no facility to shed deep-buried roots because they have no facility to grow them in the first place.

Flightless birds have wings.
Humans have an appendix.
Men have nipples.

Many double (or more) flowers (like dahlias for instance) are sterile, because their blooms replace sexual organs with more layers of petals or the petals block them. They have to be propagated by cuttings, or other means, but they still flower every year!
In order to do so they must divert energy from other parts of the plant, to no purpose.

I only know, along with many others, is that deep planting works. Whether or not it is detrimental to the overall production or growth of the plant it is impossible to actually know one way or the other. Perhaps if we had two plants of exact clones we would know but since there are no exact clones we won't ever know for sure.

 

[headfullofbees]

Look Chuck, you've said you know it works, but don't know what benefits you get from it.

Plants propagated from suckers or cuttings are exact clones

 

[Chuck]

Look Chuck, you've said you know it works, but don't know what benefits you get from it.

Plants propagated from suckers or cuttings are exact clones

No, not an exact clone. A clone yes but not exact.

 

[headfullofbees]

No, not an exact clone. A clone yes but not exact.

Yes, an exact clone.

Cloning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[headfullofbees]

Chuck: If you have not planted all your leggy seedlings, why not cut a few of them down to just above the cotyledons (or just above the first leaf stem if you've already buried the cots.), and grow the sucker it will produce?
Thus you have a new stem on the same plant, which will grow as normal, unaffected by low light levels.
Should have been done as the light improved, but still likely to be a better answer.

 

[Chuck]

Chuck: If you have not planted all your leggy seedlings, why not cut a few of them down to just above the cotyledons (or just above the first leaf stem if you've already buried the cots.), and grow the sucker it will produce?
Thus you have a new stem on the same plant, which will grow as normal, unaffected by low light levels.
Should have been done as the light improved, but still likely to be a better answer.

This makes sense. I have already planted everything and it is now the middle of setting season, so too late this year but this sounds very workable. I must be getting old. I should have thought of this long ago.

 

[Chuck]

Yes, an exact clone.

Cloning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again I have to disagree with the wikipedians. Are they trying to tell us that the two plants are identical, Yes, they are genetically identical but do each have the same number of stems, the same number of leaves, the same number of blooms? If you planted two of these identical plants side by side in a controlled environment with exactly the same growing medium would they be a mirror image of each other? I say no, they wouldn't. And if one plant had more blooms than the other then it would have the capacity for more fruit.

 

[headfullofbees]

Again I have to disagree with the wikipedians. Are they trying to tell us that the two plants are identical, Yes, they are genetically identical but do each have the same number of stems, the same number of leaves, the same number of blooms? If you planted two of these identical plants side by side in a controlled environment with exactly the same growing medium would they be a mirror image of each other? I say no, they wouldn't. And if one plant had more blooms than the other then it would have the capacity for more fruit.

They ARE the same plant.

 

[TomatoNut]

As much as I hate to agree with headfullofbees, but I think he's right. If you were to brake off and root a sucker off a Beefsteak tomato plant you'd have another Beefsteak tomato plant right, that would produce Beefsteak fruits?

 

[Chuck]

We were talking about production between deep and shallow planted plants. Of which one will produce more or less than the other. I maintain that it is impossible to know because no two plants are alike and therefore no comparison will be accurate. Yes they are the same plant, genetically identical. But when you plant two identical plants next to each other they are not identical, they produce different amounts, they look different, one has more blooms than the other etc. I maintain that if you took 10 suckers off of a plant all 10 would be different and therefore production amounts cannot be measured by anything.