[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The _Applied_ Science of Plant Nutrition
- To: "Aquatic Plants Digest" <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: RE: The _Applied_ Science of Plant Nutrition
- From: "David A. Youngker" <nestor10 at mindspring_com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:10:01 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <200202082048.g18Km1Q21474 at actwin_com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:06:51 -0500
> From: Me, of course
> Tom's remarks were directed, of course, at a request
> for very _precise_ references, but the thought behind
> these statements is what I'd like to address...
It's late at night, I'm finished up at work and in a hurry to get home. I'm
thinking that perhaps someone has a couple of ideas on the subject, so I
open OL, go to the digest, and find...
Apparently, no one knew how to take this, so let me eliminate one possible
The question IS NOT meant to be argumentative, inciteful to riot, rude or
otherwise bothersome. I really _am_ curious to understand this reluctance of
which I wrote.
Are not most of the plants we culture amphibious in nature? And a lot of the
"true aquatics" merely ancient terrestrials that have gone the way of the
Dolphin and Whale - preferring the aquatic to the land?
Would it not stand to reason that most of their responses may reflect the
same trends as some of the plants we, our pets and our livestock consume?
A plant is a plant is a plant, and a rose by any other name would still be
just as wet under water.
Obviously the mechanics of how those needs are met will vary with the
environment involved - it's a little difficult, for example, to simply
spread Rose Food across the surface of the tank and get the desired results.
But I would think that what plants _do_ with that nutrition, or light
energy, or whatever would still be essentially the same...