Author Topic: Results of an Unscientific Air Pot observation  (Read 9241 times)

mcpesq817

  • Sr. Forum Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Results of an Unscientific Air Pot observation
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2011, 09:34 AM »
Cray, thanks very much for posting the results of your study.  I've always wondered about those air pots.  Thanks also to the other folks who contributed to the thread, it's been a very interesting one.
 

Oliver

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Results of an Unscientific Air Pot observation
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2012, 07:05 PM »
Very interesting post, thanks for sharing.

I would challenge the sentence « more roots ==> more growth ». This is true only if root surface (i.e. water and mineral nutrient absorption ) is limiting. When it is not, as roots consume photosynthesis products, more roots means less aerial growth. You can find evidence for this in the scientific literature targeting horticulture professionals.

Also, I don't care much about pot depth. To me, what is important is the direction of root growth in the limited area around the trunk that will not be cut away at the next re-potting.


Just a thought, but by the reckoning of less roots it more effective, allowing more top growth surely the pond basket showed out best? The air pots are for quick growth and allow trees to establish well when transplanted into the ground at the maybe marginal cost of top growth yet the top growth should rocket once it establishes in the ground with its dense root system.
The nursery container yielded similar results yet didn't drain aswell and received the same water which could lead to the thicker spiralling roots as they had no reason to fork and they didn't dry and kept searching for more water in circles.
The pond baskets dried out often as they had less soil mass and more airation, as some people claim, the quicker the soil dries the better growth you will get as the roots have to be as efficient as possible yet you can't allow them to dry completely. Maybe the pond baskets created the most effective yet best root system as it was most effective and capable of supporting the same top growth to smallest root mass.

COMERCIAL FOR BEST RESULTS- this normally involves hydroponics to some degree in mass COMERCIAL farming where the roots often dry alot in an inorganic meduim or in air as they escape from the container and are fed nutrients, rarely plain water, almost always fertiliser to some concentration, now this uses smaller root masses and creates massive top growth and the roots are efficient and capable of supporting the top growth. Smaller root masses are favoured as less energy is used to make the roots and more into top growth (fruiting commercially), this means the most efficient root system is needed.
Hence why I say pond baskets may be better as it seems to offer the most efficient if smallest root mass.
This is my understanding of it, maybe miles off.


Just another spin on it from my point of view and insure if it's really understandable. Although I feel I've raised a fair point about the effectiveness of parts of the plant not just the mass, a reason why we favour smaller particulate in bonsai soils as it creates a finer root mass which is more effective than a tap root curled into the pot.


Please share your views on my opinions. Thanks.

And another great thread. Thanks for your information.

Sorry it's one he*l of a rant :)
 

Oliver

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Results of an Unscientific Air Pot observation
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2013, 05:17 PM »
Any more to be followed up on this? Its a good experiment...