Actually what interested me about the "Carbon Dioxide Theory Debunked" article was that elevated level of carbon dioxide caused rapid growth the first year, but was limited by a nutrient deficiency the following years. On this forum when carbon dioxide on orchids has been discussed in the past, little of any of the discussion talked about the need for more nutrients and which ones. If these Galactia elliottii had received molybdenum supplements they would have continued grown vigorously until I imagine they had another limiting nutrient factor. Oliver Sparrow states that Dutch growers use CO2 to accelerate orchid development - as do Phalaenopsis producers in Taiwan. What I wonder is they must supplement various nutrients to take full advantage of the increase in CO2 or maybe they sell them fast enough they don't worry about it. I always got the impression in pass discussions of CO2 that hobbyist were turning on the CO2 with mixed results or maybe perceived results. Adding CO2 alone may have great results in the short term, but it seems you need other nutrients for long-term vigorous growth with CO2. The orchid industry that uses CO2 may not have to worry about it because of a short turn around, but growers do. As far as CO2 directly on wild orchids I don't think that is going to be a factor to their demise or thriving. On global warming, I agree one study not going to say much. I also agree in the end Mother Nature is in charge, but when a deforested mountainside sends a landslide through a village at the bottom... When there is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico... is everyone going to say don't look at me I didn't do it that just mother nature for you.
Mark Sullivan
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
