tahoe58
Well-Known Member
hey skunk....this continues to be a real treat to sit and read when I have the time...and I did have the time again this morning. and a thought came through my mind....but I can't remember if it has been raised anywhere in the last thirty pages or not so I'm gonna through it out there....
I remember how fascinated I was when I first learned about jungle and tropical forest environments, and the complete lack of top soil and the manner of root develoment, literally at the surface. I had understood at the time that the volume of available moisture, and the nutrients from the continuous massive foliage shedding and heat/moisture degration recycling processes, provided the necessary environment to grow these humungous behemoths of trees. Where the stability of the tree became the risk due to the lack of roots. I realize this is sort of the fundamentals of hydroponic and all its variants. and I then also recall fdd's comments about his flushing and watering/nutirfying the humungous tree that he built, and his experiences with smaller rooting structures.
This all came through my mind when you were talking about roots seeming to seek out the sides of pots, and instinctual root development. Now unfortunately, I am not taking from any experience....I have none. But thinking about how nature loves a void and tries incessantly to fill it, and relating that back to nature generally being very efficient in the way it goes about its business, it would seem to me that the root growth could (should?) be expected to mimic the specific needs (and of course are a function of the genetics)....so if you are able to achieve this balance the availability of all the nutrients (water included), then the root will grow according to other variables - and not be responding to the need to "seek" out the source of its sustenence.
But then....ok ok ok...I know I'm sortof talking out of my brain directly here...but...then....that takes me to how incredibly intricate the connections and reliances and feedback loops are all dependet upon eachother. I have often viewed this in my brain as a massive collective of interconnecting cogs that changing the teeth on any one of them has the potential to have even a minute change to every other cog in the process.
So the extent of root development is not just a function of one or three or ten variables, but all the intricate aspects that are present when a plant grows. its like saying the current attempts to model climate have taken everything into account - in my view - impossible. we have grown in love with our modeling capacity. And my personal experience includes the following example....one of the things that I will do on a regular basis is habitat modeling for wildlife. we development habitat maps depicting areas where all the factors that we consider important to a particular species come together and create the ideal habitat for that species. Then we go an talk to the native elders, they look at the map and say...hmmm...interesting....never actaully ever seen a moose over there.....we actually hunt over here....pointing to the map.
I guess I 'm not sure what I'm really trying to say...I love these experiments and it is the only way that we can actually gain insight into what/why/how/when/where things happen as they do. so.....what am I trying to say? I don't know any more...another ones gone, another ones gone....and another one bites the dust! I really felt like I was going somewhere with this....but.....I'll try this....we are trying to understand the drivers to root development and its relationship with aboveground production - and based on the scary thinking that I all tried to put down above - I am not sure that we can separate the two in that one is dependent upon the other, and it is a circular process. Adjusting the variables and keeping others constant (at least the ones we know about) means you will adjust the output and the needs of others (i.e., these are not indepedent variables), and may actually be almost infinite. it would seem that I am suggesting that we are wasting our time...but experimenting is NEVER a waste of time....and this is not what I want to say. So maybe I should just shutup....and think so more.....
I remember how fascinated I was when I first learned about jungle and tropical forest environments, and the complete lack of top soil and the manner of root develoment, literally at the surface. I had understood at the time that the volume of available moisture, and the nutrients from the continuous massive foliage shedding and heat/moisture degration recycling processes, provided the necessary environment to grow these humungous behemoths of trees. Where the stability of the tree became the risk due to the lack of roots. I realize this is sort of the fundamentals of hydroponic and all its variants. and I then also recall fdd's comments about his flushing and watering/nutirfying the humungous tree that he built, and his experiences with smaller rooting structures.
This all came through my mind when you were talking about roots seeming to seek out the sides of pots, and instinctual root development. Now unfortunately, I am not taking from any experience....I have none. But thinking about how nature loves a void and tries incessantly to fill it, and relating that back to nature generally being very efficient in the way it goes about its business, it would seem to me that the root growth could (should?) be expected to mimic the specific needs (and of course are a function of the genetics)....so if you are able to achieve this balance the availability of all the nutrients (water included), then the root will grow according to other variables - and not be responding to the need to "seek" out the source of its sustenence.
But then....ok ok ok...I know I'm sortof talking out of my brain directly here...but...then....that takes me to how incredibly intricate the connections and reliances and feedback loops are all dependet upon eachother. I have often viewed this in my brain as a massive collective of interconnecting cogs that changing the teeth on any one of them has the potential to have even a minute change to every other cog in the process.
So the extent of root development is not just a function of one or three or ten variables, but all the intricate aspects that are present when a plant grows. its like saying the current attempts to model climate have taken everything into account - in my view - impossible. we have grown in love with our modeling capacity. And my personal experience includes the following example....one of the things that I will do on a regular basis is habitat modeling for wildlife. we development habitat maps depicting areas where all the factors that we consider important to a particular species come together and create the ideal habitat for that species. Then we go an talk to the native elders, they look at the map and say...hmmm...interesting....never actaully ever seen a moose over there.....we actually hunt over here....pointing to the map.
I guess I 'm not sure what I'm really trying to say...I love these experiments and it is the only way that we can actually gain insight into what/why/how/when/where things happen as they do. so.....what am I trying to say? I don't know any more...another ones gone, another ones gone....and another one bites the dust! I really felt like I was going somewhere with this....but.....I'll try this....we are trying to understand the drivers to root development and its relationship with aboveground production - and based on the scary thinking that I all tried to put down above - I am not sure that we can separate the two in that one is dependent upon the other, and it is a circular process. Adjusting the variables and keeping others constant (at least the ones we know about) means you will adjust the output and the needs of others (i.e., these are not indepedent variables), and may actually be almost infinite. it would seem that I am suggesting that we are wasting our time...but experimenting is NEVER a waste of time....and this is not what I want to say. So maybe I should just shutup....and think so more.....
