My Two Tropical Mahogany Trees

I've been unable to locate a Lysiloma sabicu for 15 years, I hope it will be in the trade for a while. I collected saplings in Naples of Swietenia mahogani in 2006, here as a forest. It's not really bonsai-like because the leaves don't really reduce. Other than that, it grows well enough.
Mf 20190222_142823.jpg
 
SockUnicorn said:
Had to change the pot again as it was just drying out way too quickly. This has more surface area and I think it fits the tree a bit better as well.

View attachment 321078
Click to expand...
The pots look like they have the same volume, but the second pot would dry out quicker because it has more open surface. ?
 
Forsoothe! said:
The pots look like they have the same volume, but the second pot would dry out quicker because it has more open surface. ?
Click to expand...

Definitely not the same volume. The first Pot could basically contain nothing but the roots. This one had man inches of area surrounding the rootball. It is slight shorter but this tree is under a shade cloth so the overall greater soil volume should keep it wet longer.

This mix is a little better than what it was in as well!
 
There is some inverse correlation between the depth of a pot and the combination of leaf thickness/leaf coating. Thick, shinny leaves can stand drying out conditions, that is to say that the leaves do not dry out at the same rate as thin, dull leaves with no waxy coating. Trees with leaves that fold up are sending a message that they are especially sensitive to drought. This is a generality, so don't bother giving examples of drought-resistant trees with thin leaves. There are several xeriscape trees that have dull, thin leaves that fold, and while they are drought-resistant, they often will drop the whole canopy and wait out the drought and grow whenever sufficient water is present.

All of this a good reason to put such trees in deeper pots.

While I'm at it, I might as well point out that, just as some trees like Pines belong in the typical bonsai/scree media mix, some do not. For sure, if you grow everything in the same way, some will thrive and some will not. Putting some wood chips and peat in a rocky media may make you feel good, but trees sensitive to drought belong in a soil that holds dampness well, that's where they feel good.
 
Last edited:
Leo in N E Illinois said:
@Forsoothe!you realize your critique is coming roughly 6 months after the OP changed the pot, and the tree looks healthy. Which means your critique was unnecessary and probably not appreciated.
Click to expand...
The advice is free. Comments are read by more than just the OP. There are 32 replies and 3,000 views. As almost always, my comments had the reasons why I commented and therein lies the rub. The reasons are more important than me or my bias. Some people will think about what's good for the tree verses what the In Crowd foists upon the uninitiated the next time they choose a pot for their tree, and some people won't. Of course, some people will just tow the party line. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Why don't you tell us the other side of the story, as you see it? Why is it better for a hobbyist to always put a tree in the smallest pot possible? There are lots of listeners here that will never show their tree(s) to an audience that insists that the Japanese show standards be upheld at any and all costs. Tell me why those kinds of people should mimic the skinny pot for this fairly delicate tree? Huh? I'll wait.
 
This is a FORUM, Leo! What do people do on FORUMS? We discuss things, and we exchange facts and factoids and opinions, and opinions are just as important as any other input. As a matter of fact that's all you just gave: an opinion, but without fleshing-out why people should not know what is good (in my opinion), or bad (in my opinion). Tell us why people don't need to understand the two concepts. I'm still waiting.
 
Forsoothe! said:
This is a FORUM, Leo! What do people do on FORUMS? We discuss things, and we exchange facts and factoids and opinions, and opinions are just as important as any other input. As a matter of fact that's all you just gave: an opinion, but without fleshing-out why people should not know what is good (in my opinion), or bad (in my opinion). Tell us why people don't need to understand the two concepts. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...
Hey its okay to talk about opinion as long as we acknowledge it as just that.

As to "leaves that open and close."

"The purpose of, and conferred benefits of nyctinastic movement have yet to be identified. Minorsky hypothesized that nyctinastic behaviors are adaptive due to the plant being able to reduce its surface area during night time, which can lead to better temperature retention and also reduces night-time herbivory.[12] Minorsky specifically suggests a Tritrophic Hypothesis in which he considers the predators of herbivores in addition to the plants and herbivores themselves. By moving leaves up or down, herbivores become more visible to nocturnal predators in both a spatial and olfactory sense, increasing herbivore predation and subsequently decreasing damage to a plant's leaves.[1] Studies using mutant plants with a loss of function gene that results in petiole growth instead of pulvini found that these plants has less biomass and smaller leaf area than the wild type. This indicates nyctinastic movement may be beneficial toward plant growth."

Closing of leaves is hardly an understood process.

You say it indicates they are sensitive to drought. I say it is an evolutionary ADAPTATION in RESPONSE to drought.

I am not offended by the comment! Tree is doing well and just went a pre spring structural change so I'm excited for it!
 
You say po tay to, I say po tah to. We see that opening & closing in response to sunshine, too, even when hydration is not a problem, and on some armed species the length of the terminal spines become substantially longer in response (my experience/opinion) to constant heading back. I see both responses as purely mechanical. There is some amount of sunshine that makes our skin more sensitive and we get the message via discomfort. Trees can't hide by moving into a shady spot, but they can wilt. They don't decide to grow longer spines, the spines just receive more fluids because they are on the stems in the most favored position. We can all understand attribution to evolutionary successes of those with any kind of device that coincidentally helps plants defend themselves, but, I wince when the explanation starts sounding like implying motive. It's dumb luck and we agree the plants that change the wrong way don't last long and don't get as much opportunity to procreate. Imputing volition of foiling herbivores would need to include an explanation of why all trees don't do everything that works. Evolution is constant and on-going and in every large batch of seedlings you will see the same phenomenon as some percentage of runts and some percentage of superior offspring. The differences in trees of Notrh America and the Europe are a pretty good example of how the same genus' of trees evolved in the last 10,000 years since the ice receded.
 
Forsoothe! said:
You say po tay to, I say po tah to. We see that opening & closing in response to sunshine, too, even when hydration is not a problem, and on some armed species the length of the terminal spines become substantially longer in response (my experience/opinion) to constant heading back. I see both responses as purely mechanical. There is some amount of sunshine that makes our skin more sensitive and we get the message via discomfort. Trees can't hide by moving into a shady spot, but they can wilt. They don't decide to grow longer spines, the spines just receive more fluids because they are on the stems in the most favored position. We can all understand attribution to evolutionary successes of those with any kind of device that coincidentally helps plants defend themselves, but, I wince when the explanation starts sounding like implying motive. It's dumb luck and we agree the plants that change the wrong way don't last long and don't get as much opportunity to procreate. Imputing volition of foiling herbivores would need to include an explanation of why all trees don't do everything that works. Evolution is constant and on-going and in every large batch of seedlings you will see the same phenomenon as some percentage of runts and some percentage of superior offspring. The differences in trees of Notrh America and the Europe are a pretty good example of how the same genus' of trees evolved in the last 10,000 years since the ice receded.
Click to expand...
Thought the argument was about planting in deeper pot :rolleyes:. Even though OP seems to know well enough the horticultural aspect of it.

What was the lesson again?
 
Forsoothe! said:
You say po tay to, I say po tah to. We see that opening & closing in response to sunshine, too, even when hydration is not a problem, and on some armed species the length of the terminal spines become substantially longer in response (my experience/opinion) to constant heading back. I see both responses as purely mechanical. There is some amount of sunshine that makes our skin more sensitive and we get the message via discomfort. Trees can't hide by moving into a shady spot, but they can wilt. They don't decide to grow longer spines, the spines just receive more fluids because they are on the stems in the most favored position. We can all understand attribution to evolutionary successes of those with any kind of device that coincidentally helps plants defend themselves, but, I wince when the explanation starts sounding like implying motive. It's dumb luck and we agree the plants that change the wrong way don't last long and don't get as much opportunity to procreate. Imputing volition of foiling herbivores would need to include an explanation of why all trees don't do everything that works. Evolution is constant and on-going and in every large batch of seedlings you will see the same phenomenon as some percentage of runts and some percentage of superior offspring. The differences in trees of Notrh America and the Europe are a pretty good example of how the same genus' of trees evolved in the last 10,000 years since the ice receded.
Click to expand...
Adaptation in response does not imply volition. It is a common biological term.

Yes, it was a random mutation that caused some species of trees to exhibit nyctinastic behavior. Clearly it was a favorable trait. It is also NOT well understood by science as much as you'd like to pontificate on the subject there are people who are paid money to figure out purpose of the behavior and they have not confidently established it's purpose to the degree that you are confidently stating in this thread. Anyone can look that up to confirm so that's the one thing id like to make clear in here.

The rest is good fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

YamadoriFL
Progress on a Tropical Mahogany (lysiloma sabicu)
Replies
5
Views
1K
Forsoothe!
Forsoothe!
T
Tropical Mahogany or Tropical Mimosa
Replies
5
Views
949
Paul F.
Paul F.
S
First Styling of Tropical Mahogany
Replies
4
Views
1K
SockUnicorn
S
C
White Pine that thrives in Tropical Region
Replies
8
Views
235
Deep Sea Diver
Deep Sea Diver
R
when to do mekiri and metsumi of JBP in tropical zones?
Replies
1
Views
112
Maiden69
Maiden69
Back
Top Bottom