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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: Re: CULT: Short stalks

  • Subject: Re: [iris-talk] Re: CULT: Short stalks
  • From: "Donald Eaves" <donald@eastland.net>
  • Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:05:34 -0500


>My observations coincide with yours for a lot of cultivars, but not
>all.  There is a subset that gets frozen out (doesn't bloom at all) if
>it gets hit at the wrong (right?) time, but will otherwise bloom
>consistently at about the same height every year that it blooms.
>Sometimes these cultivars will even produce stalks the 'normal' height
>but with withered, brown buds.

Do you know if the rest of the plant is also growing per regulations?  This
is something I'm never sure about.  If it is not, then the shorter stalks
might just be another aspect of a plant that is not growing in conditions
that are optimum for its specific requirements.  When I've moved plants to
even slightly different locations (and even a short distance move here can
be very different indeed), I've found they often perform quite differently
from the prior location.  Unfortunately, this scenario works both directions
as I found out when I traded locations between ROYAL TARA and BAYBERRY
CANDLE.  Neither appreciated the change in the least.  I drew conclusions
about them after the move, but they could still be incorrect conclusions.
The move is still in place after three seasons, but every year I promise
them I'll switch them back :).  I've found the information provided on this
list to be a better indicator of what consistently grows well and those that
are more temperamental than how a cultivar does after its initial
introduction to the harsh conditions they have to endure here.  I'm forever
fiddling with those that don't do well in one way or another.  All too often
I'm finding that more important in the way the plant performs than anything
I can lay at the genetic door.  Not that genetics isn't playing its part,
just that I find it very hard to really pin it down as a specific reason for
a plant's behavior.  So for the time being, at least, I tend to ignore it
when doing the daubing.  Both RT and BC were bountiful, consistent
performers before the switch, but the conditions they were growing under
were very different.  Neither has performed the same since the move.  But
before the move, I'd have said either was a trouble-free plant quite easy to
grow.  Subsequent to the move I'd still say the same provided they are
growing in conditions they like.  As it is, they still do okay, no more.

Donald Eaves
Texas Zone 7b, USA
Where is was a nothing year for I. pallida, and for DUSKY CHALLENGER.  Not
in the least unusual for DC, but it was relocated last year and appears to
be doing better as far as plant growth is concerned so maybe I'll find out
something about its preferences.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index