| Wee Trees Bonsai Help Forum Advice for all http://www.weetrees.co.uk/phpBB3/ |
|
| Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? http://www.weetrees.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13866 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sputnik [ 07 Aug 2015, 09:37 ] |
| Post subject: | Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
Most of us spray our trees at some time with insecticides, minerals, fertiliser etc and I wondered which sorts of foliage are best at utilising this. Gut feeling says larger surface area should be more efficient but as a relative newbie with pines I can't really make a comparison. Ideas and experience please? |
|
| Author: | lameusername [ 07 Aug 2015, 10:06 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
Does the pine have a specific problem? Mine get woolly afid for the first few month's of the year and can spray with an Ecover & treetree mix that is stronger than could be used on broadleaves, just as well as the candels are to fragile to scrub the afid off as I normally do. You spray fertilizer on the leaves of your trees? Rose |
|
| Author: | Andrew Campbell [ 07 Aug 2015, 18:34 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
Not really gave it much thought. I only really use foliar feed on pines, juniper and yew. |
|
| Author: | sputnik [ 07 Aug 2015, 20:15 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
I began using Foliar feed on Satsuki azaleas but it seems to be a helpful method for just about everything. |
|
| Author: | the bargee [ 08 Aug 2015, 08:26 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
Can someone give the names of products & where to buy foliar feeds for pines as i'm over in the UK shortly. |
|
| Author: | sphagnum force [ 08 Aug 2015, 09:31 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
Things like seaweed, fish emulsion and Epsom salts are commonly used. |
|
| Author: | paulpash [ 08 Aug 2015, 11:52 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
My experience of foliar feeding (I foliar fed for 2 years) is that it makes zero difference to the trees. Roots have evolved over millions of years to be the gatherers of moisture and nutrients for plants. Foliage has evolved to be the main solar panels that generate starches through photosynthesis. Because of the degree of waxy coating on the leaf surface (much thicker in such as Pine) water loss is mitigated - this is one of the primary reasons why pines need a drier mix as their losses due to transpiration is much lower than broadleaved trees. Add to this the reduction of stomata on the needle surface and it's easy to see how these species survive such hostile dry environments. Given this assumption about conserving water loss, needles will not absorb much in the way of moisture. Broadleaved trees have larger and a greater number of stomata combined with an increased surface area so some absorption takes place but nowhere near as much as the roots. If you have a balanced and regular feeding regime that gives the plant everything it needs at the right quantity and frequency there is absolutely no need to foliar feed. |
|
| Author: | John M [ 08 Aug 2015, 22:05 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
I go with Paul - I do not understand leaves as organs which absorb moisture (and hence anything dissolved in that moisture). Moist air is moving outwards from the leaf to the atmosphere through the stomata (which is what pulls the water up through the roots from the soil) so how is anything getting in? and when in, where is it going? Add to that the waxy cuticle on the upper surface of most deciduous leaves is impervious to water and the same practically everywhere on the surface of coniferous leaves, and I just don't see 'foliar feeding' as a practicality. Possibly, just possibly, what might happen when a tree is 'foliar fed' could be that the liquid 'foliar feed' solution, watered from above onto the leaves, runs down and off, hits the ground, joins with the soil water, and that's how the nutrients in that water are absorbed, i.e. through the roots by a roundabout route involving gravity. That's all just my hypothesis. Any dissent? J. |
|
| Author: | Bill [ 09 Aug 2015, 15:13 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Foliar absorption needles v leaves ? |
John M wrote: I go with Paul - I do not understand leaves as organs which absorb moisture (and hence anything dissolved in that moisture). Moist air is moving outwards from the leaf to the atmosphere through the stomata (which is what pulls the water up through the roots from the soil) so how is anything getting in? and when in, where is it going? Add to that the waxy cuticle on the upper surface of most deciduous leaves is impervious to water and the same practically everywhere on the surface of coniferous leaves, and I just don't see 'foliar feeding' as a practicality. Possibly, just possibly, what might happen when a tree is 'foliar fed' could be that the liquid 'foliar feed' solution, watered from above onto the leaves, runs down and off, hits the ground, joins with the soil water, and that's how the nutrients in that water are absorbed, i.e. through the roots by a roundabout route involving gravity. That's all just my hypothesis. Any dissent? J. DISSENT in general, it has been well researched and proven effective... google it. as far as i remember, in terms of rates of absorption its got nothing on a healthy rootsystem. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|