Alastair
Member
Just wondered if anyone can confirm if this is a variety of wendtii or not? seems really tall to me
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Plant i.d
- Thread starter Alastair
- Start date
wearsbunnyslippers
Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 297
looks like what my wendtii's do in my high tech...
Alastair
Member
Really? I thought they'd stayed relatively low :0(
Hello,
There is a high probability that the growth pattern shown above is a classic case of poor flow/distribution at the locations where those plants are/were situated. In your original post you did not mention how long the specimens had been submerged, however the extreme ratio of lance length to leaf length depicted is characteristic of a plants response to the buildup in the tissues of the hormone Ethylene (C2H4). Ethylene is the only plant hormone which is gaseous. The problem with gasses is that they are much less soluble in water than they are in air. As a result the Ethylene produced by the plant is not able to efficiently diffuse into the water column and escape. The hormone level in the plant tissue builds and this triggers, via hormone receptors, a genetic response in the plant to elongate the stem or lance. This is how plants respond to being flooded and it's therefore a good thing.
In an aquarium however, if we want to avoid this behaviour, we must provide a high flow to enable the gas to more efficiently escape the plant. This is yet another advantage of high flow in a planted tank., especially in a CO2 enriched tank.
C. Wendetii "brown" should stay relatively low, having a small lance-to-leaf length ratio, as shown below The water surface is approximately 24 inches (61 cm) from the top of the gravel in this photo. If you look carefully at the extreme lower right foreground, you can see a young C. Wendetii "green" with a very short lance.
On the other hand, C. Wendetii "green" seems to employ a different strategy by putting most of it's energy into broadening it's leaves and growing more vertically, so it can have a higher lance/leaf ratio than "brown" even under excellent flow conditions.
Cheers,
There is a high probability that the growth pattern shown above is a classic case of poor flow/distribution at the locations where those plants are/were situated. In your original post you did not mention how long the specimens had been submerged, however the extreme ratio of lance length to leaf length depicted is characteristic of a plants response to the buildup in the tissues of the hormone Ethylene (C2H4). Ethylene is the only plant hormone which is gaseous. The problem with gasses is that they are much less soluble in water than they are in air. As a result the Ethylene produced by the plant is not able to efficiently diffuse into the water column and escape. The hormone level in the plant tissue builds and this triggers, via hormone receptors, a genetic response in the plant to elongate the stem or lance. This is how plants respond to being flooded and it's therefore a good thing.
In an aquarium however, if we want to avoid this behaviour, we must provide a high flow to enable the gas to more efficiently escape the plant. This is yet another advantage of high flow in a planted tank., especially in a CO2 enriched tank.
C. Wendetii "brown" should stay relatively low, having a small lance-to-leaf length ratio, as shown below The water surface is approximately 24 inches (61 cm) from the top of the gravel in this photo. If you look carefully at the extreme lower right foreground, you can see a young C. Wendetii "green" with a very short lance.
On the other hand, C. Wendetii "green" seems to employ a different strategy by putting most of it's energy into broadening it's leaves and growing more vertically, so it can have a higher lance/leaf ratio than "brown" even under excellent flow conditions.
Cheers,
Alastair
Member
Hi Clive. Thanks for that. It's your wendtii brown that's made me want one. The one I posted pic wise was one Of four I have just been given for free but was amazed at how tall they were. I believe they had been kept in a low light no co2 etc set up.
Would I be right to remove all the leaves, trim the roots and plant into my tank and hopefully see new growth?
450 litre, two fx5s (finally) via spray bars, co2 at 5bps and ei dosing? Or would these have grown to accustomed to the conditions they were originally in and gave suffered somewhat?
Thanks
Would I be right to remove all the leaves, trim the roots and plant into my tank and hopefully see new growth?
450 litre, two fx5s (finally) via spray bars, co2 at 5bps and ei dosing? Or would these have grown to accustomed to the conditions they were originally in and gave suffered somewhat?
Thanks
ghostsword
Member
Hi, it does not look like a crypt to me, more like an aponogeton species.
.
.
Yes, that's certainly another possibility. Easiest way to find out is to simply chuck them in the tank and allow them to fatten up. I'd trim the roots and maybe half the lances. New shoots will grow out from the base in no time. Then you can start to remove the lanky leaves. I like to keep a few of the healthiest leaves because they are the ones that produce the food.
Cheers,
Cheers,
niru
Member
Hi Ceg
your reply is amazingly to the mark (when it hasnt been I wonder)!!
During my total novice days, I had relatively high light, no CO2 etc.. the W. Brown had long lances always nearing the surface and relatively short leaf size. I never wondered, thinking thats perhaps natural for this plant. But after adding CO2 and a good flow, and cutting/prunning, the W. brown new leaves are indeed shorter (& healthier with no melting seen). The same time I bought W. green (Gecko?? which is advertised as short size) and its lances are almost absent. Never knew that theres much to it than what one sees.
Guess I will remain always indebted to your way of explaining things..
As a sidetrack: I am a physicst, and remember Richard Feynman once explaining why, to the contrary popular belief, science lovers are better admirers of nature. He thinks thats because apart from admiring the beauty everyone sees, realising the sheer depth of stuff involved in giving rise to the "how & why" of that beauty gives them a higher kick! I am sure lot of you are on a similar path.
-niru
your reply is amazingly to the mark (when it hasnt been I wonder)!!
During my total novice days, I had relatively high light, no CO2 etc.. the W. Brown had long lances always nearing the surface and relatively short leaf size. I never wondered, thinking thats perhaps natural for this plant. But after adding CO2 and a good flow, and cutting/prunning, the W. brown new leaves are indeed shorter (& healthier with no melting seen). The same time I bought W. green (Gecko?? which is advertised as short size) and its lances are almost absent. Never knew that theres much to it than what one sees.
Guess I will remain always indebted to your way of explaining things..
As a sidetrack: I am a physicst, and remember Richard Feynman once explaining why, to the contrary popular belief, science lovers are better admirers of nature. He thinks thats because apart from admiring the beauty everyone sees, realising the sheer depth of stuff involved in giving rise to the "how & why" of that beauty gives them a higher kick! I am sure lot of you are on a similar path.
-niru
Hi niru,
Yes, your novice experience is one which is repeated throughout The Matrix, mostly with stem and carpet plants, and they invariably conclude that this behaviour is due to insufficient light - a flawed idea, which becomes hypnotic, and which then sets the hobbyist up for future failure. Thrilled that you're able to assemble the pieces of the puzzle.
R. Feynman was an amazing person and he actually cared about making the very complicated concepts of Theoretical Physics accessible to the ordinary human being. It's amazing that you should mention him because it was upon trying to get a grip on his summary lectures, such as QED Theory of Light and Matter, that I started thinking about better ways to say something. It seemed like he actually remembered what it was like to not know that something, and would retrace the steps of the path to his own understanding, including the dead ends and cul-de-sacs. I wish I understood his diagrams a bit better though. I wish we had multiple lifetimes to master each discipline....
I totally agree with Feynman's assessment that the dimensions of appreciation of nature'.s beauty are so much wider for science lovers. Both the intellect and the visceral are being fed simultaneously. Science is Art.
Cheers,
Yes, your novice experience is one which is repeated throughout The Matrix, mostly with stem and carpet plants, and they invariably conclude that this behaviour is due to insufficient light - a flawed idea, which becomes hypnotic, and which then sets the hobbyist up for future failure. Thrilled that you're able to assemble the pieces of the puzzle.
R. Feynman was an amazing person and he actually cared about making the very complicated concepts of Theoretical Physics accessible to the ordinary human being. It's amazing that you should mention him because it was upon trying to get a grip on his summary lectures, such as QED Theory of Light and Matter, that I started thinking about better ways to say something. It seemed like he actually remembered what it was like to not know that something, and would retrace the steps of the path to his own understanding, including the dead ends and cul-de-sacs. I wish I understood his diagrams a bit better though. I wish we had multiple lifetimes to master each discipline....
I totally agree with Feynman's assessment that the dimensions of appreciation of nature'.s beauty are so much wider for science lovers. Both the intellect and the visceral are being fed simultaneously. Science is Art.
Cheers,
niru
Member
ceg4048 said:
This could come only because "I could do only what I could since I am already standing on the shoulders of giants"
if you know what I mean ceg4048 said:
Yes, thats very true.. though I tend to content myself by knowing that I have seen/heard/read about these people during my current lifetime, so it hasnt been a total waste as such
I worked on Feynman diagrams & QED related stuff during my Cosmology/QFT research and this guy's sheer grasp of things & his laymanish-style explainations have been one of the major draws towards this field. My teacher during Master's time was Feynman's student & attended his Lectures series in person!! ..... perhaps we can open a topic on this sometime Coming back to plants in aquariums, I have posted a question or two in the General Planted discussion & CO2 sub-forums.. dont know if you have seen them. Would be nice to get your thoughts!
-niru
Good stuff mate. Definitely we'll have a look at that. I want to change peoples perception of light. Hoping someone with high powered X-Ray vision such as yourself can help to define an alternative point of view. 8)
I'll have a look at the threads.
Cheers,
I'll have a look at the threads.
Cheers,
niru
Member
ceg4048 said:
Hey
whats this?? What is this about light that you want to change? I am eager to know..
-niru
Hi mate,
I want to change the "continuous beam" only perspective to the "particle/wave duality" perspective. I'm also struggling to fully grasp the photoelectric effect, i.e. photon absorption and emission as it relates to electron atomic orbital/excitation. These concepts are central to understanding the chloroplast's photochemical behaviour.
The wave behaviour of the electrons comprising these pigments and other proteins within the photosystems may also allow them to travel, I suppose, via quantum tunnelling. It's all very murky. Without an easy way of explaining what's physically going on in a manner that relates to our normal experiences, it's hard to explain for example why too much light should be a problem for a plant.
Did we wander way off topic deep into the woods? I think so. I feel like Little Red Riding Hood. I had to check the title of the post to see where the heck I was.
Apologies to the OP, anyway, yes, these look like Crypt Wendetii to me. Add more flow/CO2.
Cheers,
I want to change the "continuous beam" only perspective to the "particle/wave duality" perspective. I'm also struggling to fully grasp the photoelectric effect, i.e. photon absorption and emission as it relates to electron atomic orbital/excitation. These concepts are central to understanding the chloroplast's photochemical behaviour.
The wave behaviour of the electrons comprising these pigments and other proteins within the photosystems may also allow them to travel, I suppose, via quantum tunnelling. It's all very murky. Without an easy way of explaining what's physically going on in a manner that relates to our normal experiences, it's hard to explain for example why too much light should be a problem for a plant.
Did we wander way off topic deep into the woods? I think so. I feel like Little Red Riding Hood. I had to check the title of the post to see where the heck I was.
Apologies to the OP, anyway, yes, these look like Crypt Wendetii to me. Add more flow/CO2.
Cheers,
Alastair
Member
ceg4048 said:Hi mate,
I want to change the "continuous beam" only perspective to the "particle/wave duality" perspective. I'm also struggling to fully grasp the photoelectric effect, i.e. photon absorption and emission as it relates to electron atomic orbital/excitation. These concepts are central to understanding the chloroplast's photochemical behaviour.
The wave behaviour of the electrons comprising these pigments and other proteins within the photosystems may also allow them to travel, I suppose, via quantum tunnelling. It's all very murky. Without an easy way of explaining what's physically going on in a manner that relates to our normal experiences, it's hard to explain for example why too much light should be a problem for a plant.
Did we wander way off topic deep into the woods? I think so. I feel like Little Red Riding Hood. I had to check the title of the post to see where the heck I was.
Apologies to the OP, anyway, yes, these look like Crypt Wendetii to me. Add more flow/CO2.
Apology not needed Clive, I was quite intrigued as to both your conversations, most of it went right over my head though ha ha.
Cheers,
