• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Flowering Bucephalandra

dw1305 said:
they are more like the trees (above) partially because it is the same for <"Monstera"> and Philodendron spp., they need to mature before flowering and they are both woody Aroids, like Bucephalandra spp.
Click to expand...
I don't think the comparison is the best possible. Monsteras and Philodendrons are vines. They don't flower in their youth because they expect it would take some time before they reach the forest canopy and get sufficient illumination for flowering and creating fruits.
There are better Aroids to compare with - perennial, epiphytes like Anthurium, semi-epiphytic Anubias, or terrestrial Spatiphyllum. Some of them can create flowers and fruits successfully while relatively young and small. Spatiphyllum are bog plants but, as far as I know, always create flowers above water surface.
Anyway, the fact that Bucephalandras create flowers underwater is interesting, and rather hard to explain, I'm afraid. Some of my Bucephalandras blossom quite readily, and keep on living and growing underwater as if it were their standard course of life. Which is somewhat difficult to believe. The more so that they stubbornly refuse to grow BIGGER, damn it.
 
The Miniaturist said:
I hope it doesn't die now!
Click to expand...
MichaelJ said:
Me too! 🙁 I've gone from oh, wow, a flowering buce.... cool! to darn it... now I have to replant it to save it :lol:
Click to expand...

I've had the same buce flowering on and off for about 2yrs so don't think them throwing out a spathe necessarily signals the beginning of the end for them, unless of course you have a rare Bucephalandra Helianthus Annuus.
 
John q said:
I've had the same buce flowering on and off for about 2yrs so don't think them throwing out a spathe necessarily signals the beginning of the end for them, unless of course you have a rare Bucephalandra Helianthus Annuus.
Click to expand...
Thanks @John q , I currently only keep the Black and Green variants of Bucephalandra Achilles.

Yes, I am just going to trim the canopy a bit and perhaps rearrange it slightly without having to downright uproot it and re-plant it.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Just remembered, another example of mine. This B. Theia thrived under water grew enormous and flowered continuously. I don’t think it was the least bit stressed.

1705062701837.jpeg
1705062937223.jpeg

NatureScape - The End

Couldn't resist trying this awesome piece of gnarliness out in my new 60P. I'm going traditional NatureScape with this one, Crypts, Java fern, maybe some red stems etc. Either way, I think I'll keep it relatively simple - back to basics. There's still a few yards left in Return of the...
www.ukaps.org www.ukaps.org
 
Just remembered, another example of mine. This B. Theia thrived under water grew enormous and flowered continuously. I don’t think it was the least bit stressed.

View attachment 214690
View attachment 214691

NatureScape - The End

Couldn't resist trying this awesome piece of gnarliness out in my new 60P. I'm going traditional NatureScape with this one, Crypts, Java fern, maybe some red stems etc. Either way, I think I'll keep it relatively simple - back to basics. There's still a few yards left in Return of the...
www.ukaps.org www.ukaps.org
Click to expand...
Geez Tim, those are great looking Buce's 🙂

Cheers,
Michael
 
This B. Theia thrived under water grew enormous and flowered continuously.
Click to expand...
What was the water like? You know, my Buces (various "species") live quite happily, some even flower, but remain small. I seriously wonder if they don't require hard water to grow bigger. Because my tanks are uniformly soft-water acidic...
 
Buce grew in was fuel injected and reasonably high light and that plant sat in the main flow. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Similar to Java fern, Bucephalandra will do better sitting in the position of higher flow rates!
It's not too fussy about light....above is more important, the characteristic of this plant is that the rhizome will self-destruct to save itself from a poor position in the aquarium!
 
buces are rheophytes.
Click to expand...
Are they? I somewhat struggle to comprehend this genus because the information on their natural habitats is often contradictory. Indeed, Kalimantan is a big island and comprises of many different habitats. And then, of course, the vast problem of their taxonomy. What source of information is to be believed? I'd love to give them what they want, but in this case, it's insoluble, I'm afraid.
 
Plant distribution is rarely confined to those habitats or environmental conditions that are preferable or perfect.

For instance, when I was researching the impact of groundwater drawdown on wetlands I sometimes found plant species that usually prefer much drier conditions growing in wetland fringes; even a slight change in environmental conditions can be enough to change the dynamics of an ecosystem, particularly a fragile one susceptible to tipping points, and make it inhabitable to some species but suitable to others.

Plant species have always grown in less favourable conditions but largely unnoticed or passed off as outliers. I think wetlands or other habitats at the extreme range of tolerance, like old toxic mine workings, are among the few places some species can be found now since their preferred habitat has disappeared, usually under concrete or a sea of wheat, or it's been laid to grazing and they've become outcompeted by C strategists like perennial ryegrass.

I also think this quote by Clive sums it up quite well.
ceg4048 said:
Yes, unfortunately, these are legends leftover from the 1990's. Whenever someone would find a plant in the wild it was automatically assumed that whatever conditions the plant was found in was, by default, the preferred conditions. It was never considered that the same plant could often be found in other, very different conditions and that it would adapt to those conditions. So people do crazy things to their tank parameters attempting to match some mythical standard.
Click to expand...

But you’re good at setting up experiments, maybe one which seeks to determine if there is a significant a relationship between water flow velocity and growth rate of buces could be worthwhile.
 
For instance, when I was researching the impact of groundwater drawdown on wetlands I sometimes found plant species that usually prefer much drier conditions growing in wetland fringes; even a slight change in environmental conditions can be enough to change the dynamics of an ecosystem, particularly a fragile one susceptible to tipping points, and make it inhabitable to some species but suitable to others.

Plant species have always grown in less favourable conditions but largely unnoticed or passed off as outliers. I think wetlands or other habitats at the extreme range of tolerance, like old toxic mine workings, are among the few places some species can be found now since their preferred habitat has disappeared, usually under concrete or a sea of wheat, or it's been laid to grazing and they've become outcompeted by C strategists like perennial ryegrass.
Click to expand...

A good example among many is Rotala macrandra which I believe is generally considered a challenging stem is now widely considered an invasive species here in the US adapted to and growing as far north as the Great Lakes - east shores of Lake Michigan.... Same goes for several Ludwigia spp.

Anyway, where the heck is the invasion of Rotala and Ludwigia in my tanks? Just asking? :lol:

I do think there are close to ideal conditions and best practices for most plants... trying to obtain those conditions should not be considered chasing mythical standards.... Yes, many plant can adapt over time to adverse conditions - we know that. But making statements along the lines that water conditions etc. doesn't matter is sort of like saying that a plant centric forum such as UKAPS is royal waste of time.... we are here to indulge and learn... not the opposite. I gather a lot of statements along the lines of water parameters doesn’t matter were mostly made by people who merely but expertly injected a lot of CO2… 🙂

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
do think there are close to ideal conditions and best practices for most plants... trying to obtain those conditions should not be considered chasing mythical standards....
Click to expand...
I’m sure there are, and finding them is what gardening is about. But I don’t think that’s the point of the statement. It means finding plants in less than ideal conditions and then mistakenly trying to replicate those conditions in our tanks as though they were optimal, and failing repeatedly..
 
Editing asides...
_Maq_ said:
. I seriously wonder if they don't require hard water to grow bigger. Because my tanks are uniformly soft-water acidic...
Click to expand...

MichaelJ said:
I gather a lot of statements along the lines of water parameters doesn’t matter were mostly made by people who merely but expertly injected a lot of CO2…
Click to expand...
Don't take this the wrong way @MichaelJ but suspect you somehow look down on the folks that add additional carbon to there tanks.

Bucephalandra generally spend much of their time emersed, or at best in shallow fast flowing waters, the levels of Co2 in these situations is likely higher than 1~2ppm.
Should we be shamed for copying nature in this instance?
 
Last edited:
John q said:
the levels of Co2 in these situations is likely higher than 1~2ppm.
Should we be shamed for copying nature in this instance?
Click to expand...
There are two resources of increased CO2 in natural waters:
(1) Water springs. Water coming from the depth where CO2 concentration (and pressure) is often very high. Plants often like such a spring water but such localities are limited. Therefore, none of our plants is tied to such natural habitats.
(2) Respiration, mostly microbial respiration. Such CO2 is a product of respiration, i.e. oxygen consumption. You can easily calculate that the presence of 10 mg/L CO2 means that 7.2 mg/L O2 had been consumed. Such a water is virtually devoid of oxygen. It is definitely not an environment in which any higher plants can live (not to mention fish). We know such waters as effluent ditches of communal or industrial dirt.
So, please, don't try to fabricate claims that elevated CO2 is "natural". Up to some 5-6 mg/L, perhaps, but not any more.
 
John q said:
Don't take this the wrong way @MichaelJ but suspect you somehow look down on the folks that add additional carbon to there tanks.
Click to expand...

No, I do not look down on hobbyists injecting CO2... not at all - I would do it if I could inject say 5 ppm of CO2 without the investment in equipment and all it takes in terms of added complexities. The only thing I take issue with is when people use their successful high tech tanks to somehow "prove" and universally downplay the importance of water parameters and a more meticulous dosing approach.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
This may be of interest

How much carbon in natural waterways?

As per title - let's assume the highest concentration possible.... What are the sources for this carbon?
www.ukaps.org www.ukaps.org
Click to expand...

I've found it notoriously hard to find real data for CO2 levels in typical tropical freshwater biotopes. A couple of references quote lake surface water as high as 10 ppm, but I doubt thats a common occurrence. The quoted link didn't provide any actual data points.

Anyone, please post here if you find any real data.

Cheers,
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top