Talk:Manicaria saccifera

Soil

These palms grow in inundated/swampy areas, so I was thinking the soil_type field value in the PalmBox could be Poor drained. What do you think? --Luis Diego 16:19, 11 August 2007 (PDT)

• Poorly drained isn't quite the right term, because you could have poorly draining soil that also happened to be dry. I think just simply "very wet" might do, or maybe "wet/swampy" would do. I'll ask Kim, she is very good with words. Did you happen to see this link on the Forum? It is very interesting. Aquatic Palms Dypsisdean 18:35, 11 August 2007 (PDT)
• It looks like this discussion has jumped quickly from "soil_type" to "watering". Descriptions of soil might include composition, texture, or location. Examples: acidic mixture of peat and sand, coarse alkaline sandy soil; fluffy loam, heavy clay; rocky slopes, river margins, bog conditions, "inundated swampy areas". What is the compositon of the soil where these palms naturally occur? If a palm grower wanted to provide the most appropriate soil for this palm in the garden, what 'recipe' would you recommend? Then in the "watering" field, you'll want to use the "very wet", "wet/swampy", or "continuously saturated" type of description. Yes, there is some overlap, but the two fields are reasonably distinct. I know we use the description "well-drained soil" rather frequently. Maybe we are being too lazy and should give more precise descriptions? Kim 13:39, 12 August 2007 (PDT)
• I see when I visit the Aquatic Palms link, Bactris campestris is described as occurring in "wet areas, poorly drained", which describes the location, but not exactly the soil. Kim 13:39, 12 August 2007 (PDT)
• Thanks Kim --- Luis, Not surprisingly, Kim has done a better job putting into words what I was trying to get at. I'm sure you understand the distinction between "soil type" and "watering needs." And she is right with her comments regarding "well drained soil" being a catch-all term that is used for almost everything. I would think the correct thing to do might be to include a "Native Soil" category (which could be researched) and a "Water Needs" category. However, I am a little hesitant because I don't want the PalmBox to become too "busy" and cumbersome by adding another "Native Soil" category. In addition, the native soil isn't always an indication of what will work in cultivation. So for now, I think I would recommend just sticking to "Water Needs," and we can include any specifics we know about soil types in the cultural write up. But I am very open to other view points. What do you guys think?
• At any rate, I think it is obvious we need a standardized scale for "Water Needs," ranging from Xeriphytic to Aquatic. How many different designations would be needed? How's this, any suggestions? Xeriphytic, dry, periods wet/dry, average, moist/wet, wet/saturated, aquatic.
• It seems "soil type" invites enough of a description of the soil without getting too crazy about native soil/cultivated soil subcategories. I think Luis can use his description, "inundated swampy areas" here.
• Just for fun I flipped through my Sunset Western Garden Book, which uses a system of four raindrop symbols for water needs. However, each plant also has a comment next to the symbol, such as "no water, just a little", "ample water during growth", "much water", "careful, frequent water", "regular water in summer", "no water once established". In other words, a standardized scale isn't really adequate to describe all the variations in watering demanded by plants. Kim 15:48, 12 August 2007 (PDT)

• Hi Dean and Kim, I think the soil field should be for values as: Poor soils/Normal soils/Rich in organic matter. Also alkaline/sandy/clay/rocky/etc is a good set of values. The watering scale is a good idea. I think all values in the PalmBox should be written according to mature plants needs (I mean in the culture fields), because seedlings many times have different needs (this should be written in the culture subsection). So a little message as: "Information applies for mature plants." could be helpful for the visitors? Just an idea. The Aquatic palms page was interesting, would it be good to have a Category for Aquatic Palms?--Luis Diego 17:30, 13 August 2007 (PDT)