While looking over photos from my California desert trip this spring, I came upon this curious plant:
You can see most of the plant is dead (white branches), though there are two clumps of vigorous growth, shown up close here:
What’s going on here?
Answer Monday!
As Jason rightly guessed, this is a Schlumbergera species, specifically S. truncata, also known as the Thanksgiving cactus (which has toothed edges as shown). It’s related to the Christmas cactus (S. bridgesii – scalloped edges) and the Easter cactus (S. gaertneri, whose segments are three-sided rather than flattened). [Disclaimer: the nomenclature of this genus and its species is a mess. Even the university websites disagree on whether it’s Schlumbergera, Hatiora, or Rhipsalidopsis. Now you know why I am not a taxonomist.]
On to the more interesting question – those hairs. The green segments you see on these plants are not leaves, but flattened stems, called phylloclades (or cladodes). Phylloclade comes from the Latin word for leaf (phyllo-) and the Greek word for branch (-clade). These leaf-like branches are the primary photosynthetic organs for the plant.
So where, you may ask, are the leaves? That’s what those hairs are! And if you look at your Christmas/Easter/Thanksgiving cactus when it begins to set buds, you’ll see that the buds arise from the leaf axils – that point where the leaf joins the stem. This distinction is why these hairs are, morphologically, the true leaves of the plant.
Take a look at this photo:
This is a two part quiz: on what plant would you find these hairs, and what are these hairs called?
Answers on Monday!
Nobody in their right mind considers pesticides safe. They are, after all, poisons which we have created to kill things, be those things plants, insects, fungi, rats, or whatever. The idea that we could have foods with no pesticides on them is attractive. Now I’ve got to admit that, as a general rule, I don’t think that the levels at which most pesticides are found on foods is concerning. Our methods of detecting poisons are just too sensitive today and so we end up saying that a poison is “present” on a tomato or whatever even if it’s there at a harmless parts-per-trillion level. Still, I won’t deny that I’d prefer it if there were no synthetic pesticides on any food.
A couple of days ago a report came out from CNN about the “dirty-dozen.” http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/01/dirty.dozen.produce.pesticide/index.html This is a list of the twelve fruits and vegetables which are most likely to have detectible levels of synthetic pesticide residues. Along with this list there is a suggestion that, when purchasing these fruits and veggies, you should select those that are organically produced whenever possible. I don’t have a problem with this list being reported. In fact, I think it’s a good idea to give people all of the information that we can about pesticides. While I, personally, am not particularly afraid of conventionally produced fruits and veggies because of the synthetic chemicals which they may contain I appreciate the fact that others might be. I do, however, have a major problem with the idea that organically produced fruits and veggies are necessarily safer than those produced with synthetics. You see, organically produced food is not tested for residues of potentially damaging organic pesticides, and those same foods that are slathered by synthetic pesticides in non-organic growing systems are typically slathered by organic pesticides in organic systems, particularly if you’re dealing with foods produced using what has become known as “industrial organic production” which fill most of our large grocery stores with USDA Certified Organic Produce nowadays. These organic pesticides may be present at higher concentrations than synthetic pesticides and may have similar effects on humans, and even worse effects on the environment than synthetics (though it depends on the exact pesticides used and how often they are used of course).
The myth that organic foods don’t have pesticides used on them is one that really needs to die. No farmer, organic or non-organic, wants to use pesticides, and sometimes they can get away without using them. Certain crops are rarely sprayed regardless of whether they’re produced organically or not. Pesticides cost money and are dangerous, but when faced with the potential loss of a crop producers will do what they need to do to avoid losing their crop, and if that means applying pesticides then so be it. Organic farmers may choose to use different pesticides, and they might wait longer before they spray (although often they spray sooner because the relative efficacy of their sprays are inferior to synthetic sprays) but let’s not say that organically produced foods are free of pesticide reside. Just because we’re not testing for it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
As Paul suspected, this is a Phalaenoposis flower. Here it is again, shown next to another flower on the same plant (but different stalk):
As to the second question – why does it look this way – there could be a number of reasons. I’m leaning toward environmental. This particular flower stalk is an old one – after it had bloomed initially (with normal flowers), we left it on after the flowers fell. As often happens, new flower buds appeared, but all of them have been abnormal. Some were completely fused and never opened. This one is missing most of its petals.
Other reasons could include viral infection (as Sheila suggested) or somaclonal variation (common in tissue cultured plants, which is how many orchids are propagated). But this flower stalk is perpetually colder than the rest of the plant as it’s closest to the window. And since its first crop of flowers were normal, I think this variation is due to cold temperature interference during flower development.
If you have other ideas, be sure to post them!
What am I? And why do I look like this?
Neither the flower nor photo has been altered. But it is a tricky question.
Answer on Monday!
Just got a picture of the cover of a new book I’ve got coming up soon. It’s a collaborative project with an old friend of mine who is a political science professor at UNC Charlotte. We look at a bunch of different environmental issues, different things that the government could do about these issues, and then we rate these options by how the well the right and left wingers would like them. Sure to tick people off! The book won’t be out till next January — It’s typically over a year between when something is first turned in and when it comes out — that’s just publishing.
Lots of good guesses this week! As many of you realized, this is a huge tree root making the best of a small tree pit. But it’s not a Norway maple (sorry John) or a mulberry (sorry Robert), but a sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) (congratulations Brian!). (You can see the little mace-like seed pods on the ground.) The root does resemble a bicep (“Treebeard’s elbow”) flexing to crack the concrete (aka Robert’s Concretious blandmulsia):
Though sweetgum can be nice urban trees, their roots are quite vigorous and can lift sidewalks several inches above grade as they increase in diameter:
>
Thanks for all the entries – our readers are smart and funny!
What am I? Lots of clues here…
Answer and more photos Monday!
I enjoyed Jeff’s post on the RootTrapper and thought I’d share another interesting and [relatively] new development in the world of greenhouse growing containers.
Take a tube full of growing media, wrap a paper sleeve around it, and voila – the Ellepot!
It’s bottomless, root permeable, and degradable. Each Ellepot sits in its own cell in a re-usable tray. The great aeration and drainage makes for a happy, healthy root system. Another plus is that after transplanting, there are no pots or packs to throw away
I’d say the bulk of Elle Pots are utilized at the propagation end of things – starting seeds and rooting vegetative cuttings – either for greenhouses to “grow on” themselves or as plug/liner products sold to finishing growers (see student Paul Hutcheson holding a geranium liner above).
Ella and Ojvind Ellegard of Denmark developed the system in the early 1990’s. Popular with growers in Europe, they’ve made their way to North America. Growers can buy in Ellepots by the pallet from various sources, or can invest in the equipment to make them
Wrap it up, I’ll take it…an Ellepot machine at Battlefield Farms, Rapidan, Virginia.
Sizes run from 15 mm (288 cells per 20” x 10” tray) up to 120 mm – equivalent to a 4” pot, perfect for bedding plants. Landscapers love them if they can find them – less waste from installation sites.
Petunia in an Ellepot. That’s Marc Verdel, head grower at Battlefield Farms.
As far as retail goes, I’m not sure if any market research has been done as to consumer preferences for this “pot-less” system. It’s a slight challenge for a shopper to pick one of this and two of that and transport them – you need some kind of carry tray. Anyone out there experienced with Ellepots (grower or gardener)?