Now see if you were smart Mr. Heath, you would have figured this out. I handed you the key but you were to short sighted looking for a room to insult. Stomata, those little tiny openings on the bottom of leaves could have given you an intelligent argument. You see stomatal up take can be a major pathway for the foliar uptake of ionic solutes. Food penetrates these pores and is put to work by the plant..a pretty ingenius idea and concept actualy. But guess what. Pine needles and juniper needles have much fewer stomata that broadleaf tree leaves plus a thick waxy coating or cuticle. So food penetration by foliar application to 'needled' plants will not be as great in contrast to a buttonwood leaf which will inhale ionic solutes (food).
Foliar Feeding - Myth?
- Thread starter Anonymous User
- Start date
Now see if you were smart Mr. Heath, you would have figured this out. I handed you the key but you were to short sighted looking for a room to insult. Stomata, those little tiny openings on the bottom of leaves could have given you an intelligent argument. You see stomatal up take can be a major pathway for the foliar uptake of ionic solutes. Food penetrates these pores and is put to work by the plant..a pretty ingenius idea and concept actualy. But guess what. Pine needles and juniper needles have much fewer stomata that broadleaf tree leaves plus a thick waxy coating or cuticle. So food penetration by foliar application to 'needled' plants will not be as great in contrast to a buttonwood leaf which will inhale ionic solutes (food).
Attila Soos
Omono
It an interesting area to contemplate on.....needle-leaved plants (conifers) evolved on a very different path from the broad-leaved plants. Broad-leaved plants seem to take advantage of the possibility of foliar feeding, while the needle-leaved one do it to a much lesser degree. The reason may be the adaptation to a much dryer environment in case of conifers, where it is more important to preserve water and reduce evaporation, then to capture nutrients through leaves. In a more humid climate, plants seem to take advantage of both root and foliar feeding.
In the case of scale-leaved plants (juniper, cypress), it seems to me that they are better adapted to use their stomata, than in the case of pines.
Last edited:
Shooting off the hip here, I would think that it all boils down to surface area exposed to the environment. The bigger the leaf (needle), the more stomata required to maintain. Does a juniper needle compared to a pine needle have more or less stomata per millimeter I don' know but they are much smaller in length.
Not everything that goes into the stomata openings is good as well. Ozone, fire smoke, coal smoke and volcanic dust can enter through where injury occurs.
Pics are needle stomata and large leaf
Not everything that goes into the stomata openings is good as well. Ozone, fire smoke, coal smoke and volcanic dust can enter through where injury occurs.
Pics are needle stomata and large leaf
Attachments
Anonymous User
Banned
From the very first post...
"Foliar feeding at first glance seems almost romantic; the thought of delivering nutrients directly to the foliage instead of though the soil, roots, and up the trunk to the foliage seems idea. The soluble fertilizer companies, seeing possibilities of increased sales, since foliar feeding uses far more of their product than traditional feeding practices, are quick to tout such claims as immediate results, prolong bloom times, increased pest and disease resistance, and even increased crop yields.
The problem is that most of these claims are based on some research done by Michigan State University in the 1950's in which, by the use of raidolabeled nutrients, it was determined that the leaf is a very efficient organ for absorption. The amounts absorbed were actually very low but the efficiency was high, leading to false claims that foliar feeding was many times more effective than soil applications.
Linda Chalker-Scott, an Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor at the Puyallup Research and Extension Center of Washington State University, clarifies this in her article, "The Myth of Foliar Feeding."
"Obviously, materials applied directly to a leaf are more likely to enter the leaf in large quantity than the same materials applied to soil. Leaching, chemical reactions, microbial activity, etc. can decrease what actually reaches the roots and is taken up into the plant. But material applied to the leaf do not necessarily travel throughout the entire plant as effectively as they do through root uptake. The often remain in the same or adjoining tissues but travel no further. This is especially true of those elements recognized as "immobile" within plant tissues (apart from root uptake and xylem transport)."
Linda goes on to state that the nutrients plants need the most of are the very ones that cannot be absorbed in large enough quantities by the leaf to do any good, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. She also specifically states some facts based on research that may surprise many bonsaists, such as:
The common myth of foliar feeding is based on misreading and/or misinterpreting research done over 40 years ago. Since that time it has been shown that foliar feeding is ineffective in almost every aspect promoted by the companies that sell products designed for the practice. In fact, foliar feeding has been shown to work the best only in the case of soil with low nutrient availability, in other words, when a plant has no other option for nutrients. As bonsaists, our soil would never reach the level needed for foliar feeding to do any good.
Bonsai need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium the most, as do any other plants and these nutrients are the very ones that foliar feeding is the worst at providing.
It is my personal opinion that any success by bonsaists using foliar feeding can be directly attributed to the mixture running off onto the soil, not through absorption through the leaves. The common practice of watering from above and dosing the foliage puts the nutrients into the soil, even though the bonsaist believes they are foliar feeding."[/I]
I, as always, would welcome rebuttal that is based on at least the same quality references, sources, and research as presented. As always, I would love being proved wrong as much as I love being proved right, either way, our knowledge and understanding of the subject is increased. No matter the outcome of these debates, we all win.
Will
"Foliar feeding at first glance seems almost romantic; the thought of delivering nutrients directly to the foliage instead of though the soil, roots, and up the trunk to the foliage seems idea. The soluble fertilizer companies, seeing possibilities of increased sales, since foliar feeding uses far more of their product than traditional feeding practices, are quick to tout such claims as immediate results, prolong bloom times, increased pest and disease resistance, and even increased crop yields.
The problem is that most of these claims are based on some research done by Michigan State University in the 1950's in which, by the use of raidolabeled nutrients, it was determined that the leaf is a very efficient organ for absorption. The amounts absorbed were actually very low but the efficiency was high, leading to false claims that foliar feeding was many times more effective than soil applications.
Linda Chalker-Scott, an Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor at the Puyallup Research and Extension Center of Washington State University, clarifies this in her article, "The Myth of Foliar Feeding."
"Obviously, materials applied directly to a leaf are more likely to enter the leaf in large quantity than the same materials applied to soil. Leaching, chemical reactions, microbial activity, etc. can decrease what actually reaches the roots and is taken up into the plant. But material applied to the leaf do not necessarily travel throughout the entire plant as effectively as they do through root uptake. The often remain in the same or adjoining tissues but travel no further. This is especially true of those elements recognized as "immobile" within plant tissues (apart from root uptake and xylem transport)."
Linda goes on to state that the nutrients plants need the most of are the very ones that cannot be absorbed in large enough quantities by the leaf to do any good, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. She also specifically states some facts based on research that may surprise many bonsaists, such as:
- Tree and shrub species differ dramatically in their ability to absorb foliar fertilizers.
- Micronutrients are the only minerals that can be effectively applied by foliar feeding and too much of these can damage or kill a plant.
- Foliar spraying is only a temporary solution to the larger problem of soil nutrient availability.
- Any benefit from foliar spraying of landscape trees or shrubs is minor considering the cost and labor required.
The common myth of foliar feeding is based on misreading and/or misinterpreting research done over 40 years ago. Since that time it has been shown that foliar feeding is ineffective in almost every aspect promoted by the companies that sell products designed for the practice. In fact, foliar feeding has been shown to work the best only in the case of soil with low nutrient availability, in other words, when a plant has no other option for nutrients. As bonsaists, our soil would never reach the level needed for foliar feeding to do any good.
Bonsai need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium the most, as do any other plants and these nutrients are the very ones that foliar feeding is the worst at providing.
It is my personal opinion that any success by bonsaists using foliar feeding can be directly attributed to the mixture running off onto the soil, not through absorption through the leaves. The common practice of watering from above and dosing the foliage puts the nutrients into the soil, even though the bonsaist believes they are foliar feeding."[/I]
I, as always, would welcome rebuttal that is based on at least the same quality references, sources, and research as presented. As always, I would love being proved wrong as much as I love being proved right, either way, our knowledge and understanding of the subject is increased. No matter the outcome of these debates, we all win.
Will
This is why you will never be a credible source for information Mr. Heath. It is all about winning and supporting your little man ego. What people want is Knowledge based on experience and what is effective and not so effective based on every day experienced 'from the horses mouth' information not a bunch of tired quotes that fit your diatribe. You have won something all right. The one sideded biased sometime lies award. There should be a better way of learning then sticken someone's nose in their own mess.
"Foliar feeding...without a doubt, has absolutely no good effect at all when used on plants." WH
Help me help you! You are not being told the truth.
http://www.spraygro.com.au/foliar_feeding.asp
http://www.growersmineral.com/crops/indepth-articles/foliar-fed-plans
Read foliar feed plans
Help me help you! You are not being told the truth.
http://www.spraygro.com.au/foliar_feeding.asp
http://www.growersmineral.com/crops/indepth-articles/foliar-fed-plans
Read foliar feed plans
Last edited:
Anonymous User
Banned
We are doing just fine without your input WH but I am glad you came out of the closet and decided to read more information. The truth doesn't have to hurt. It's like the Boy Scout motto "be prepared" the next time you offer the public halph-truths.
Mitty
Yamadori
As I feed my Bonsai trees with fertilizers containing micro and macro doses of essential vitamins and minerals , I can se no reason to go mad about foliar feeding. I also find that feeding my trees with a circular way, using up to 10 different fertilizers , I am sure this helps a lot as it is difficult to determine exactly what is included in these feeding mixtures.
I cannot prove this but just like us, we improve with a varied diet and it covers about 90% of what is available across the board. I feel that with a lot of trees I am covering all " tastes " in a metaphorical way. No doubt I will be jumped upon about this , but I do get good results. I don`t feed Nitrogen in autumn however. I have a range for each season.
I cannot prove this but just like us, we improve with a varied diet and it covers about 90% of what is available across the board. I feel that with a lot of trees I am covering all " tastes " in a metaphorical way. No doubt I will be jumped upon about this , but I do get good results. I don`t feed Nitrogen in autumn however. I have a range for each season.
Lazylightningny
Masterpiece
The dead have arisen! Break out the hatchets and katanas!
Yosemite Goat
Mame
I cannot help myself add to this. Even though not a tree or shrub, a modified leaf does absorb nutrients.
Darlingtonia californica
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Valley_Botanical_Area
Darlingtonia californica
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Valley_Botanical_Area
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
Ho Ree Sheet, ancient Chinese( fake )Philosopher said Yes.
Bonsai Nut
Nuttier than your average Nut
Yes, it is possible for plants to absorb nutrients through their leaves. Is it better/preferred to a standard method of soil fertilization? The answer to that question is dependent upon many other factors...
Probably the most classic example of foliar uptake is the herbicide Roundup. It is ONLY absorbed through actively growing leaves. It will not work on roots - in fact, they have done root drench studies with plants literally soaking in Roundup with no ill effects. That is why you can spray weeds around the base of a tree with Roundup, and kill all the weeds without harming the neighboring tree.
Probably the most classic example of foliar uptake is the herbicide Roundup. It is ONLY absorbed through actively growing leaves. It will not work on roots - in fact, they have done root drench studies with plants literally soaking in Roundup with no ill effects. That is why you can spray weeds around the base of a tree with Roundup, and kill all the weeds without harming the neighboring tree.
Anthony
Imperial Masterpiece
http://www.gardenmyths.com/fertilizer-garden-myths/
just scroll down to,
Foliar Fertilizers -
"Some nutrients do not move easily once inside the leaves so they don’t get to where they are needed eg iron, manganese and calcium. When calcium entering a leaf it will not be transported to developing fruits so it won’t prevent blossom end rot (BER) in tomatoes. "
Good Day
Anthony
just scroll down to,
Foliar Fertilizers -
"Some nutrients do not move easily once inside the leaves so they don’t get to where they are needed eg iron, manganese and calcium. When calcium entering a leaf it will not be transported to developing fruits so it won’t prevent blossom end rot (BER) in tomatoes. "
Good Day
Anthony
Brent
Mame
Hmmm, not quite true, probably and industry study. Roundup can enter exposed roots and also enter roots if the solution can penetrate the soil. Symptoms vary, but usually not fatal. The most common symptom is a distortion of the leaves. You don't see this much because a light spray on the surface of the soil will dry in 1/2 hour and not enter or penetrate the root zone. But you should not spray on very wet soil where there are surface roots.
How do I know? I have seen it several times back in my landscaping days. I have no idea of how many species may be affected, but the signs were crystal clear on some large Silver Maples In a lawn that I mowed. I saw in several other places, but too long ago to remember the species.
Brent
Evergreen Gardenworks
Last edited:
Bonsai Nut
Nuttier than your average Nut
I respect your personal experience. I was actually referring to papers I had read on the topic (versus my own personal experience). Here is an example (with links to studies):
The Science of Roundup
Now this paper is provided by Monsanto, and Monsanto has recently run into some problems regarding their research practices (to say the least). So who do you trust? If you have had personal experience that belies what the papers say... I'll go with the personal experience.
Last edited:
0soyoung
Imperial Masterpiece
I have experienced effects just as @Brent described.
A particular case in my experience is that I had some pesky bindweed growing beside a large azalea. I put Roundup in an old tupperware container. I fed a length of the bindweed through a small-ish hole in the lid, immersing the leaves in the solution when the lid was sealed in place. This set on the ground for a month or two, killing the bindweed. The next season, the azalea had stunted/malformed leaves as flowers on stems adjacent to where the bindweed had been.
So either some Roundup spilled onto the ground or was exuded into the soil from the bindweed roots - dunno which for certain. Monsanto's statements may be correct in a context of spray applications, but it is clearly promotional literature and not a scientific paper (which describes conditions and levels in great enough detail that any one else can attempt to replicate the reported results).
Lazylightningny
Masterpiece
This is interesting anecdotal information. I find bindweed especially difficult to eradicate, since even a small piece of the root will regenerate. I have not had success on bindweed roots with roundup, especially given they are usually several inches below the soil.
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
Being a student of what drives people to post....
This is a great one!
A folly feeding thread meant to disprove a giant ape!
Classic!
Just want to point out how much American Bonsai would suck without your website and fantastic information.
Thank you Kindly for your work!
Sorce
Similar threads
