hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: RE:Planting Depth

In a message dated 4/23/2005 2:15:14 PM Central Daylight Time, 
irischapman@netscape.net writes:

> As you remember I planted 10 plants each at 
> 1) Half exposed
> 2) Just backs exposed
> 3) 1/2"
> 4) 1"
> 5) 2"
> There were some winter losses in all catagories except 1" depth.

I once tested growth rates (increase) versus planting depths here with about 
20 varieties. I did not however collect continuing rot data.

That being said, rhizomes planted at the 1/2" produced the greatest increase 
and those planted at 1" depths equaled or exceeded the performance of rhizomes 
planted with their backs exposed.

Your data I find helpful. Perhaps rhizomes need insulation for heat 
protection here and cold protection there. My expectation is that conventional wisdom 
contains a lot more wish than we care to admit. Likely someone just left the 
"h" out of "wishdom".

Bill Burleson

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement