D. prolifera media

[RL7836]

Several years ago, I set up an experiment to see if D. schizandra had a preference with media. I posted my results over here & based on my results as well as other's comments, I swapped all of my schizzies into non-peat media's (and today all of my plants are very happy in 100% live LFS).

Last September (09.12.09), I set up an experiment to see if D. prolifera did better / worse than it's cousin with varied media. While the plants went through various stages of growth, here they are as of a few days ago:

All plants were almost exactly the same size when I started the experiment (my apologies for poor pic quality). Media in each pot:

- bottom left - 2.1.1 peat.sand.APS

- bottom right - 2.1.1.1 - peat.live chopped LFS.sand.APS

- top right - 3.1.2 - chopped live LFS.sand.APS

- top left - 100% chopped live LFS

Fairly soon after I potted the individual plants, the original leaves on each died back. However, the leaves in the 2 peat-based pots died back first and a week or two later, the leaves in the LFS-based media died back (but more gradually). Other than this period of a few weeks when the peat based pots were regrowing and the LFS pots were dying back, the LFS-based plants have always appeared healthier than the plants in the peat-based media. The leaves are a darker color and generally larger - both in pad size and overall petiole length. I found that both plants in the peat media had pads that were always somewhat lighter than the other two - giving a bleached appearance.

IMO, the peat-based media's were consistently inferior during the seven months of the experiment with the pot having the highest concentration of peat (lower left) being the worst performer. The two LFS-based media pots were similar in their growth patterns. Some differences could be seen on a week to week basis but overall they appeared roughly equal. Each of the plants put out a significant number of runners (flower stalks...). Since I didn't notice any real differences in the runners, they didn't seem to be an indicator of health.

All 4 pots were housed in a 10 gallon aquarium under T-8 shoplights in my basement for this period. This environment, in general, has been very conducive to good growth for all three sisters (translation - they grow like weeds down there). To maintain a good level of humidity, I generally keep a layer of live sphagnum growing in between the pots of the various Neps, Dews, Utrics & Heli's growing there. In this layer, I've allowed feral prolifera to spread at will & there are anywhere from 2-3 in some tanks to 10-20 in others.

Although, just as my media experiment with D. schizandra couldn't really be considered truly statistically significant or valid, this may provide a starting point for others who are pondering what media mix to use...

[jesse]

the LFS-based plants have always appeared healthier than the plants in the peat-based media

Thanks for sharing information!

I'm growing mine in pure peat and see very slow growing.

I think I should give it a try with Sphagnum based substrate, too.

[Sebulon]

I grow mine in a mix of chopped live Sphangum moss and peat, 2:1. They get a few hours of direct sunlight and grow very well, stiff erect leaves with a lot of slime and a nice reddish coloration in the undersides of the leaves. Flowers a lot and makes plantlets to the tips of flowerscapes.

[Kevin Tonnerre]

You ever tried pine bark (and maybe some coconut fiber)? Its a renewable resource and worked for me for the Queensland Droseras. In my experience, they just dont like too wet feet but like an airy/loose substrate.

So if you use peat, maybe its not only the media, but also the watering. The plants tend to "choke" this way, so giving them less water in connection with a peat-based media might work equally well.

[UtricSeb]

Nice experiment. I have always grown mine in 100% sphagnum with excellent results.