Nerd Alert: Watering - Sep 3 Update!
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Updated!
You should change your name to "125%to0in10days"
-
From0to10in2weeks
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:45 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Updated!
I had the same problem. Have finally gotten it under control. I did get a scale and have been working on that this week. I am sure it will help me with my watering regime. It’s a big help.
-
From0to10in2weeks
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:45 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Updated!
Note to all following this: I just had an important realisation. Monitoring the relative weight change of a pot after watering is of course entirely valid to determine when to repeat watering. But it gets a bit trickier when trying to compare between different pots or groups of pots, especially if they are (slightly) different.
As indicated above, I assumed that the observed lower relative weight gain of the larger pots compared to the medium pots in the previous two monitoring runs was due to the fixed soaking time to be presumably to short to saturate the larger pots.
So, I included already during the last monitoring run (but not presented) two small and two large pots with the same soil mix but without any plant. The idea was to look at the drying behaviour of the soil mix itself to compare it against a pot with a cacti. And to look at different soaking times, e.g. for the two small pots 15 and 30 mins and for the two large pots 30 and 45 mins. But the results were unexpected and confounding for the smaller pots. And today I watered again but got the same results.
So, that made me look closer at the data. And I realised that the absolute weight gain (in grams!) upon watering is exactly as you'd expect: longer soaking times gives a slightly larger weight gain. But the relative weight gain (in %) was the reverse! Huh? How can that be? Well, as it turns out I happened to use a heavier planter for the 30 min soak pot than the one with the 15 min soak. So, although it shows a slightly larger absolute weight gain it registers as a smaller relative weight gain as the whole assembly (soil, plastic pot, planter) is heavier. Well, duh!
But then I looked at the rest of my collection and... all the plants with medium diameter planters are made of plastic. Whereas all the planters of small and large diameter are ceramic and are therefore heavier. Which registers as a relative lower relative weight gain...
Anyway, below are the two plots for the average weight gain in grams after initial watering. So, it all makes sense now: the amount of water absorbed scales with the volume of the pots as it should. Note, the differences in the initial water uptake between the two runs are due to changes in my watering protocol as described previously.
Sorry for the confusion. Best.
As indicated above, I assumed that the observed lower relative weight gain of the larger pots compared to the medium pots in the previous two monitoring runs was due to the fixed soaking time to be presumably to short to saturate the larger pots.
So, I included already during the last monitoring run (but not presented) two small and two large pots with the same soil mix but without any plant. The idea was to look at the drying behaviour of the soil mix itself to compare it against a pot with a cacti. And to look at different soaking times, e.g. for the two small pots 15 and 30 mins and for the two large pots 30 and 45 mins. But the results were unexpected and confounding for the smaller pots. And today I watered again but got the same results.
So, that made me look closer at the data. And I realised that the absolute weight gain (in grams!) upon watering is exactly as you'd expect: longer soaking times gives a slightly larger weight gain. But the relative weight gain (in %) was the reverse! Huh? How can that be? Well, as it turns out I happened to use a heavier planter for the 30 min soak pot than the one with the 15 min soak. So, although it shows a slightly larger absolute weight gain it registers as a smaller relative weight gain as the whole assembly (soil, plastic pot, planter) is heavier. Well, duh!
But then I looked at the rest of my collection and... all the plants with medium diameter planters are made of plastic. Whereas all the planters of small and large diameter are ceramic and are therefore heavier. Which registers as a relative lower relative weight gain...
Anyway, below are the two plots for the average weight gain in grams after initial watering. So, it all makes sense now: the amount of water absorbed scales with the volume of the pots as it should. Note, the differences in the initial water uptake between the two runs are due to changes in my watering protocol as described previously.
Sorry for the confusion. Best.
- Kakteen Gain Averages 20200814.jpg (51.78 KiB) Viewed 1486 times
- Kakteen Gain Averages 20200824.jpg (46.71 KiB) Viewed 1486 times
-
From0to10in2weeks
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:45 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Updated!
Hello there,
Some more data on the weight change of my 14 cacti after watering them on August 25. It’s a long post but I hope you’ll follow along as there is some cool stuff in there. IMO at least.
To recap, I measure the weight of the planter (incl. planter, plastic pot, substrate mix, drainage stones, cacti) before and after watering, and then record the weight of the whole planter every 24 hours with 0.1 g resolution. In addition, I included two planters with pots of small and large diameter (5.5 vs 8 cm) with substrate mix only (2:1 by volume of Seramis cactus substrate and a peat-free general purpose soil) to understand how the substrate mix itself dries. All received the same 30 mins bottom soak with tap water acidified to ph 5,5 - 6. All are indoors in front of a large east-facing window bank, and they get some direct sunlight around noon if I open an adjacent southeast facing window.
All plant IDs mentioned below were provided/confirmed by anttisepp in a previous post here on this forum. Thanks again!
http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtop ... =3&t=44951
First, the chart of the average weight gain upon watering (difference in weight before and after watering) for pots of small, medium and large diameter look pretty similar to the previous plots. However, you may notice that unlike during the previous two monitoring rounds the weight gain doesn’t go back to zero within 10 days. Instead, all show an average weight gain relative to before watering.
Well, the difference during this latest run was the weather! In the previous two rounds it was mostly sunny with temperatures in the 30s whereas during the period from Aug 25 to today we had only four really sunny days. But also a few days with heavy overcast and even rain. And the daytime high temperature was more in the low 20s. So, that shouldn’t be too surprising then, right? Well, hold on…
As indicated, I included some “dummy” pots with substrate mix only but no plants for the small and large pot size. I didn’t have any spares for the medium size to include. So, the following chart shows again the average weight gain upon watering for pots with small and large diameter, both with (line) and without (dotted) plants. (DS and DL mean “dummy small” and “dummy large”, respectively).
There are three noteworthy things IMO.
1. First, the pots with plants take up actually more water than the ones without upon watering. I guess that’s trivial for you all. But for some reason, it wasn’t on my radar screen that the plants themselves may actually take up water during the watering itself. Somehow I assumed that it’s a much slower process and they absorb water only from the wetted substrate. So, good learning.
2. Then, despite the relatively cool weather the small pot DS-30 with substrate mix only still dries out within about 5-6 days after watering (why it goes below 0 is a source of significant confusion and frustration). In contrast, the larger pot DL-30 retains some moisture even today relative to before watering on Aug 25. Although the reduction seems to be stagnating as the curve is flattening. But it confirms the overall perception that larger pots dry slower than smaller ones. No surprise really.
But how is that relevant? Well, if the substrate mix in the small pots dries out within 5-6 days even with this relatively cool weather then they sure did much faster in the previous period when it was much warmer. And as the average weight gain for the pots with plants then actually returned to 0 after 10 days (unlike now) that means that the poor cacti were significantly dessicated. Which is consistent with one plant (#10, Opuntia monocantha f. monstruosa variegata) being kind of floppy before watering and perking up a lot afterwards. Boy was thirsty. More on that later.
3. Also, if you look at this chart carefully you’ll notice that the difference between the average weight gain after watering for pots with and without plants is increasing with time. In other words, their weight declines slower with time than the substrate mix. The only explanation I have is that after watering the plants continue to take up water from the substrate mix. Or they are growing. And indeed some are. Both processes in pots with plants will “slow” the apparent weight loss compared to evaporation from the substrate mix only.
Now, the plots so far included average weight gains for small (8) and large pots (3). But I got intrigued enough by the above that I started to look at the data of the individual cacti. And it sure got more interesting.
First, the following chart shows the weight gain after watering of two Trichocereus terscheckii (tentative ID) 9A and 9B as well as the substrate only pot DS-30. The cacti are actually siblings as they originally were in the same pot upon purchase at IKEA and I separated them upon repotting.
As you can see they both behave extremely similar. In fact, also in the previous monitoring rounds they showed always exactly the same behavior. The slight difference emerging over time in the average weight gain is possibly due to 9B being ever so slightly larger. But what’s most noteworthy IMO is the huge difference in weight gain relative to the dummy DS-30. It’s the largest for all plants I monitored. And they sure are growing, though more in diameter than in height in my impression.
Next, here are the data for a set of three Pilosocereus glaucochrous (2A-C), again siblings originally and separated upon repotting, in comparison to the substrate only dummy DS-30. Note again how similar the three behave (same in previous monitoring rounds). That gives me confidence in my methodology of watering and weighing, and that these are some meaningful data and observations.
But obviously compared to 9A/B in the previous chart (same scale), they take up less water relativ to the substrate only DS-30. That makes sense as they are actually much smaller than 9A/B. Though interestingly enough, 2C is smaller than 2A and 2B but takes up the most water initially. Weird but maybe it is trying to catch up to its larger siblings…
And again, they also show the increasing difference relative to DS-30 with time corresponding to a net-weight gain. Growth or just water retention?
The following shows the weight gain for one plant #3 only, a represent of one of the Espostoa lanata/nana/melanostele or Cephalocereus senilis species. For the life of me, I can’t distinguish them. Anyway, this guy shows overall a similar behavior to the previous ones though the net weight gain relative to DS-30 at the end is much smaller.
Now, siblings 8A and 8B (tentative ID as Mammillaria rekoi) is a weird case. As you see in the following chart they both behave completely differently. 8B shows a similar initial water uptake and change over time as the previous cases. But 8A took up less water than even the substrate-only dummy DS-30. How could that be? My best guess at the moment is that 8A may have lost some soil through the pot holes in the bottom during the watering. It’s an unfortunate complication but I am very sure about the difference between 8A and B in the initial water uptake being real (though maybe not quantitatively correct). Why? Because in the previous two monitoring rounds 8B always took up much more water than 8A as well.
Further, although 8A initially takes up much less water than 8B they both end up at a similar net weight gain relative to the substrate only DS-30. Somehow, 8A is gaining weight drastically. I am not sure what that means but it sure is interesting.
Now, although these two cacti came from the same pot originally they look actually noticeably different. 8A has a globular, rather plump shape with long hooked yellowish spines. Whereas 8B is more columnar and at least in the past had shorter, whitish straight spines only. I’ve however noticed recently that newer spines at the apex show hooked ends now. It’s also much smaller in diameter than 8A but similar in height. Are these differences in some way responsible for the different weight changes?
The next chart shows the weight gain of 3 cacti in the larger pots as well as the substrate only dummy DL-30. They are #1 (Mammillaria pilcayensis), #5 (Gymnocalycium baldianum) and #10 (Opuntia monocantha f. monstruosa variegata).
As you may remember I mentioned previously that #10 was kind of floppy before and that it perked up upon watering on Aug 25. It actually showed the largest initial water uptake (almost 11 g!!!) relative to the substrate only mix of all 14 plants. I have no idea where it stores all that water as the plant is not even 9 cm tall at it’s highest point. But the plant shows also a completely different behaviour over time. It looses weight more or less like the substrate only dummy DL-30. I have no idea why.
In contrast, #1 and #5 behave similar to what we’ve seen so far with the cacti in smaller pots as there is a slight increase in the difference between their weight gain and the substrate dummy after watering over time.
Now, clearly this change in difference between pots with and without plants over time must mean something. And if you look very carefully you’ll notice that at least for some plants the difference first increases but then decreases again. This is most notable for the plants in the smaller pots. So, let’s calculate the difference and plot it. To be clear, this is basically the net weight change of the plant itself over time as the substrate only contribution has been subtracted. The basic assumption here is of course that the amount of substrate and densification is similar enough in the pots with and without plants (as well as the weight of the plastic pots/planters etc.). I hope that makes sense.
First, the result for the plants in the smaller pots. As you can see, for most plants there is a change over time in that the difference between the weight gains of the plant vs the substrate increases initially and then starts decreasing again with time.
Notably, the maximum difference, in other words the max net plant weight gain, occurs at two dates:
08/29: 2C, 8B
08/31: 2A, 2B, 3, 8A, 9A, 9B
2C is clearly ahead of its siblings 2A and B and the rest. 8B is a bit of a weirdo as it shows some slight variation (increase, decrease, increase, decrease) throughout that time period. I am not quite sure what to make out of this.
But what is the significance of 8/31 for the majority of the other plants? Well, that’s the day the substrate only dummy pot DS-30 dried out completely! The weight within the resolution of the scale on subsequent days was the same as on Aug 31. There was no more moisture in there that could evaporate at current ambient conditions. The assumption is now that the same was true on that day for the other pots.
So, is the subsequent weight loss in the plant pots after 8/31 due to evaporation from the plant itself? Does the increase of the net plant weight gain up to 8/31 indicate plant water uptake from the soil and/or plant growth? Sounds likely.
Now, here is the same chart for the cacti in the larger pots (#1, #5 and #10). As indicated before, #10 behaves completely different than any other plant. It just continues to loose weight. On the other hand, #1 and #5 show similar behaviour in the their curves as the plants in the smaller pots. And the maximum net plant weight gain is at 08/30 and 08/29, respectively.
But wait: the substrate only dummy DL-30 is still retaining moisture on Aug 29/30 and still loosing weight on subsequent days. In fact, it still has 2.1g of moisture in it today. And therefore one could assume that the same/similar amount of moisture is still in the substrate of #1 and 5 as well.
So, why do #1 and #5 not simply continue to gain weight by taking up further moisture from the soil? Well, my guess is that this relates to the size of their root network. All three plants were repotted from 5.5 cm to 8 cm diameter pots in July. So, it seems likely that the root network of those plants hasn’t penetrated yet the entire pot volume. And that there is moisture in that excess volume (relative to 5.5 cm dia pots) that’s just not accessible to the plant yet. So, they took up all water they could and now continue to loose water from the plant itself (despite there still being moisture in the substrate per DL-30). Of course, this is complete speculation and I’d love to hear other suggestions.
Sorry for that long post. I hope someone else might find this interesting and helpful. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Best.
Some more data on the weight change of my 14 cacti after watering them on August 25. It’s a long post but I hope you’ll follow along as there is some cool stuff in there. IMO at least.
To recap, I measure the weight of the planter (incl. planter, plastic pot, substrate mix, drainage stones, cacti) before and after watering, and then record the weight of the whole planter every 24 hours with 0.1 g resolution. In addition, I included two planters with pots of small and large diameter (5.5 vs 8 cm) with substrate mix only (2:1 by volume of Seramis cactus substrate and a peat-free general purpose soil) to understand how the substrate mix itself dries. All received the same 30 mins bottom soak with tap water acidified to ph 5,5 - 6. All are indoors in front of a large east-facing window bank, and they get some direct sunlight around noon if I open an adjacent southeast facing window.
All plant IDs mentioned below were provided/confirmed by anttisepp in a previous post here on this forum. Thanks again!
http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtop ... =3&t=44951
First, the chart of the average weight gain upon watering (difference in weight before and after watering) for pots of small, medium and large diameter look pretty similar to the previous plots. However, you may notice that unlike during the previous two monitoring rounds the weight gain doesn’t go back to zero within 10 days. Instead, all show an average weight gain relative to before watering.
- Kakteen Gain Averages 20200903.jpg (43.61 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Well, the difference during this latest run was the weather! In the previous two rounds it was mostly sunny with temperatures in the 30s whereas during the period from Aug 25 to today we had only four really sunny days. But also a few days with heavy overcast and even rain. And the daytime high temperature was more in the low 20s. So, that shouldn’t be too surprising then, right? Well, hold on…
As indicated, I included some “dummy” pots with substrate mix only but no plants for the small and large pot size. I didn’t have any spares for the medium size to include. So, the following chart shows again the average weight gain upon watering for pots with small and large diameter, both with (line) and without (dotted) plants. (DS and DL mean “dummy small” and “dummy large”, respectively).
- Kakteen Gain Averages SMD 20200903.jpg (43.49 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
There are three noteworthy things IMO.
1. First, the pots with plants take up actually more water than the ones without upon watering. I guess that’s trivial for you all. But for some reason, it wasn’t on my radar screen that the plants themselves may actually take up water during the watering itself. Somehow I assumed that it’s a much slower process and they absorb water only from the wetted substrate. So, good learning.
2. Then, despite the relatively cool weather the small pot DS-30 with substrate mix only still dries out within about 5-6 days after watering (why it goes below 0 is a source of significant confusion and frustration). In contrast, the larger pot DL-30 retains some moisture even today relative to before watering on Aug 25. Although the reduction seems to be stagnating as the curve is flattening. But it confirms the overall perception that larger pots dry slower than smaller ones. No surprise really.
But how is that relevant? Well, if the substrate mix in the small pots dries out within 5-6 days even with this relatively cool weather then they sure did much faster in the previous period when it was much warmer. And as the average weight gain for the pots with plants then actually returned to 0 after 10 days (unlike now) that means that the poor cacti were significantly dessicated. Which is consistent with one plant (#10, Opuntia monocantha f. monstruosa variegata) being kind of floppy before watering and perking up a lot afterwards. Boy was thirsty. More on that later.
3. Also, if you look at this chart carefully you’ll notice that the difference between the average weight gain after watering for pots with and without plants is increasing with time. In other words, their weight declines slower with time than the substrate mix. The only explanation I have is that after watering the plants continue to take up water from the substrate mix. Or they are growing. And indeed some are. Both processes in pots with plants will “slow” the apparent weight loss compared to evaporation from the substrate mix only.
Now, the plots so far included average weight gains for small (8) and large pots (3). But I got intrigued enough by the above that I started to look at the data of the individual cacti. And it sure got more interesting.
First, the following chart shows the weight gain after watering of two Trichocereus terscheckii (tentative ID) 9A and 9B as well as the substrate only pot DS-30. The cacti are actually siblings as they originally were in the same pot upon purchase at IKEA and I separated them upon repotting.
As you can see they both behave extremely similar. In fact, also in the previous monitoring rounds they showed always exactly the same behavior. The slight difference emerging over time in the average weight gain is possibly due to 9B being ever so slightly larger. But what’s most noteworthy IMO is the huge difference in weight gain relative to the dummy DS-30. It’s the largest for all plants I monitored. And they sure are growing, though more in diameter than in height in my impression.
- Kakteen Gain 9 20200903.jpg (41.86 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Next, here are the data for a set of three Pilosocereus glaucochrous (2A-C), again siblings originally and separated upon repotting, in comparison to the substrate only dummy DS-30. Note again how similar the three behave (same in previous monitoring rounds). That gives me confidence in my methodology of watering and weighing, and that these are some meaningful data and observations.
But obviously compared to 9A/B in the previous chart (same scale), they take up less water relativ to the substrate only DS-30. That makes sense as they are actually much smaller than 9A/B. Though interestingly enough, 2C is smaller than 2A and 2B but takes up the most water initially. Weird but maybe it is trying to catch up to its larger siblings…
And again, they also show the increasing difference relative to DS-30 with time corresponding to a net-weight gain. Growth or just water retention?
- Kakteen Gain 2 20200903.jpg (44.58 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
The following shows the weight gain for one plant #3 only, a represent of one of the Espostoa lanata/nana/melanostele or Cephalocereus senilis species. For the life of me, I can’t distinguish them. Anyway, this guy shows overall a similar behavior to the previous ones though the net weight gain relative to DS-30 at the end is much smaller.
- Kakteen Gain 3 20200903.jpg (39.09 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Now, siblings 8A and 8B (tentative ID as Mammillaria rekoi) is a weird case. As you see in the following chart they both behave completely differently. 8B shows a similar initial water uptake and change over time as the previous cases. But 8A took up less water than even the substrate-only dummy DS-30. How could that be? My best guess at the moment is that 8A may have lost some soil through the pot holes in the bottom during the watering. It’s an unfortunate complication but I am very sure about the difference between 8A and B in the initial water uptake being real (though maybe not quantitatively correct). Why? Because in the previous two monitoring rounds 8B always took up much more water than 8A as well.
Further, although 8A initially takes up much less water than 8B they both end up at a similar net weight gain relative to the substrate only DS-30. Somehow, 8A is gaining weight drastically. I am not sure what that means but it sure is interesting.
Now, although these two cacti came from the same pot originally they look actually noticeably different. 8A has a globular, rather plump shape with long hooked yellowish spines. Whereas 8B is more columnar and at least in the past had shorter, whitish straight spines only. I’ve however noticed recently that newer spines at the apex show hooked ends now. It’s also much smaller in diameter than 8A but similar in height. Are these differences in some way responsible for the different weight changes?
- Kakteen Gain 8 20200903.jpg (44.31 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
The next chart shows the weight gain of 3 cacti in the larger pots as well as the substrate only dummy DL-30. They are #1 (Mammillaria pilcayensis), #5 (Gymnocalycium baldianum) and #10 (Opuntia monocantha f. monstruosa variegata).
As you may remember I mentioned previously that #10 was kind of floppy before and that it perked up upon watering on Aug 25. It actually showed the largest initial water uptake (almost 11 g!!!) relative to the substrate only mix of all 14 plants. I have no idea where it stores all that water as the plant is not even 9 cm tall at it’s highest point. But the plant shows also a completely different behaviour over time. It looses weight more or less like the substrate only dummy DL-30. I have no idea why.
In contrast, #1 and #5 behave similar to what we’ve seen so far with the cacti in smaller pots as there is a slight increase in the difference between their weight gain and the substrate dummy after watering over time.
- Kakteen Gain Large 20200903.jpg (45.09 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Now, clearly this change in difference between pots with and without plants over time must mean something. And if you look very carefully you’ll notice that at least for some plants the difference first increases but then decreases again. This is most notable for the plants in the smaller pots. So, let’s calculate the difference and plot it. To be clear, this is basically the net weight change of the plant itself over time as the substrate only contribution has been subtracted. The basic assumption here is of course that the amount of substrate and densification is similar enough in the pots with and without plants (as well as the weight of the plastic pots/planters etc.). I hope that makes sense.
First, the result for the plants in the smaller pots. As you can see, for most plants there is a change over time in that the difference between the weight gains of the plant vs the substrate increases initially and then starts decreasing again with time.
- Kakteen Difference Small 20200903.jpg (53.8 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Notably, the maximum difference, in other words the max net plant weight gain, occurs at two dates:
08/29: 2C, 8B
08/31: 2A, 2B, 3, 8A, 9A, 9B
2C is clearly ahead of its siblings 2A and B and the rest. 8B is a bit of a weirdo as it shows some slight variation (increase, decrease, increase, decrease) throughout that time period. I am not quite sure what to make out of this.
But what is the significance of 8/31 for the majority of the other plants? Well, that’s the day the substrate only dummy pot DS-30 dried out completely! The weight within the resolution of the scale on subsequent days was the same as on Aug 31. There was no more moisture in there that could evaporate at current ambient conditions. The assumption is now that the same was true on that day for the other pots.
So, is the subsequent weight loss in the plant pots after 8/31 due to evaporation from the plant itself? Does the increase of the net plant weight gain up to 8/31 indicate plant water uptake from the soil and/or plant growth? Sounds likely.
Now, here is the same chart for the cacti in the larger pots (#1, #5 and #10). As indicated before, #10 behaves completely different than any other plant. It just continues to loose weight. On the other hand, #1 and #5 show similar behaviour in the their curves as the plants in the smaller pots. And the maximum net plant weight gain is at 08/30 and 08/29, respectively.
But wait: the substrate only dummy DL-30 is still retaining moisture on Aug 29/30 and still loosing weight on subsequent days. In fact, it still has 2.1g of moisture in it today. And therefore one could assume that the same/similar amount of moisture is still in the substrate of #1 and 5 as well.
So, why do #1 and #5 not simply continue to gain weight by taking up further moisture from the soil? Well, my guess is that this relates to the size of their root network. All three plants were repotted from 5.5 cm to 8 cm diameter pots in July. So, it seems likely that the root network of those plants hasn’t penetrated yet the entire pot volume. And that there is moisture in that excess volume (relative to 5.5 cm dia pots) that’s just not accessible to the plant yet. So, they took up all water they could and now continue to loose water from the plant itself (despite there still being moisture in the substrate per DL-30). Of course, this is complete speculation and I’d love to hear other suggestions.
- Kakteen Difference Large 20200903.jpg (41.19 KiB) Viewed 1450 times
Sorry for that long post. I hope someone else might find this interesting and helpful. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Best.
-
greenknight
- Posts: 4819
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:18 am
- Location: SW Washington State zone 8b
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Sep 3 Update!
You shouldn't be surprised that cacti take up water quickly. They're adapted to take advantage of occasional thunderstorms which produce brief, heavy rainfall - after which, the soil rapidly dries out again. They have to get the water fast, before it's gone.
Spence 
-
From0to10in2weeks
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:45 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Sep 3 Update!
I'll be damned. I just finished my soak and 8A again took up less water than the substrate only pots. Maybe there are significant more drainage stones in 8A reducing the amount of soil available for water uptake. But I thought I did them all the same. Or at least similar enough for all other pots. Strange.
-
mikethecactusguy
- Posts: 2173
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:51 am
- Location: Indio Ca
- Contact:
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Sep 3 Update!
I have found this whole thing humorous. Instead of learning from your plants you have put them on a regimented plan that is not really accurate
Sorry. I don't see the fun in the hobby when it gets this strict.
Mike M
Sorry. I don't see the fun in the hobby when it gets this strict.
Mike M
Mike The Cactus Guy
Enjoying the Spines
Enjoying the Spines
-
From0to10in2weeks
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:45 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Nerd Alert: Watering - Sep 3 Update!
Glad to have contributed to your entertainment.mikethecactusguy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:55 pm I have found this whole thing humorous. Instead of learning from your plants you have put them on a regimented plan that is not really accurate
Sorry. I don't see the fun in the hobby when it gets this strict.
Mike M