The "Liebig Principle" states that growth will always be limited by
whatever nutritional factors are in limited supply. When we examine an organism
growing in equilibrium with its environment, the factors limiting growth are not
always apparent. We can, however, determine by trial and error which factors
these are and if it is possible to accelerate growth by removing such
limitations, which is the concept governing the use of fertilizers. Carbon dioxide is
an ephemeral gas, making up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Plants are
dependent on a sophisticated system of stomata for access to it, and it should
not be surprising that access can be facilitated by raising the concentration of
the gas in the atmosphere. Here is where things get blurry. Mark Sullivan
produces out of thin air, without any supporting data, the claim that such a
response cannot be sustained. Remember that horticulturists are free to enhance
their products indefinitely with artificial fertilizer containing all
minerals required by their products. "Mother Nature" has nothing to do with this
construct. She is primarily the product of fuzzy 19th century thinking, when
much of the natural world was unknown and the principles of formal scientific
logic were vague. Nowadays we rely on the Scientific Method and place our faith
on the analysis of experimental data.
Mark attempts to bolster his point of view by stating, "...in the end
Mother Nature is in charge," followed by an apocalyptic vision of a village
buried under a deforested mountainside, and even further, "...a large dead zone in
the Gulf of Mexico." Such metaphors have little to do with whether carbon
dioxide enhanced growth of orchids can be sustained.
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
