Re: Re: CULT: incidence of rot
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] Re: CULT: incidence of rot
- From: o*@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:53:41 EDT
In a message dated 10/3/2002 7:25:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
lmann@volfirst.net writes:
> So comparing across climates might give some general information IF
> everybody had the same soil physical, chemical, and biological
> characteristics (nutrients, structure, clay mineralogy, moisture
> availability, worms, nematodes, etc), plus rhizomes of the same
> age/stage of growth with the same growth history (acclimation
> influence?), plus the same pests, plus the same degree of cultivation,
> weeds, companion plants, etc etc....well, you get the idea.
>
First we must design the experiment. Then we must collect the data. Once the
data is collected it may be viewed, compared and massaged in a number of
different ways to extract inferences. Presently the available data is
anecdotal at best (Dave tells me if Easy Off were successful it would be
antidotal). I think more is gained by looking at the data over a wide range
of growing conditions. The incidences of rot can then be compare to each
other. The controllable parameters can be redefined. We cannot reasonably
expect to create laboratory conditions in a field environment.
> I'd really like to know what is going on in the physiology and
> morphology of cultivars that are generally rot prone vs those that are
> usually resistant. I don't know much about plants & how they do things,
> but I wonder about physical barriers of surface cells (leaves, rhizomes,
> roots, everywhere) that are resistant to damage and/or bacterial
> invasion
>
Me too.
> - do resistant cultivars (rc's) have thicker skins or are they better
> able/quicker to repair stress related damage/deterioration?
> - how do rc's allocate carbon that they fix in photosynthesis - do they
> use more for roots, repairs, storage than non-rc's?
> - do rc's spend less energy trying to repair the damage, cut their
> losses, and work on keeping new increases uninfected (sure seems to be
> true for some - mother rhizome turns to soup while increases grow like
> mad)?
>
I've made some interesting observations here. e.g. Lanai that successfully
overcame rot, with no assistance from me, actually initiated new root growth
that grew through infected tissue on several mature rhizomes. Perplexing for
sure.
> Wouldn't it be convenient if it turned out that something relatively
> easy to quantify, like maybe cuticle thickness of leaves, were strongly
> correlated with rot susceptibility?
>
You have effectively double the size of our previously fair to midlin' sized,
non existent, highly educated, knowledgeable research staff with questions
you nor them know the answer to. Maybe we can get down the road and solve the
problems usin' my/yours/Eaves/other's opinions rather then a strong AIS
commitment to rot research. <g>
Bill Burleson 7a/b
Old South Iris Society
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
