JPB Smart Pots vs Std Nursery Pots FIGHT!

[pga7602]

I started with four saplings roughly the same size and growth form. After two years of growing them out, here are the results. Two were potted in Smart Pots (fabric) and the other two were planted in standard nursery pots.

The trunk sizes seem to have grown at the same rate. Judging from the top, the plants took on different growth patterns. I will report them again next year so stay tune for comparison of root systems.

 

[Jester217300]

Someone did this on another forum with dawn redwood... smart pot, regular pot, ground growing. The smart pot actually beat the other two growing methods for 3 years running.

 

[Catalyst05]

What exactly do you mean by smart pots "beating" nursery pots? I actually think the nursery container pines look much healthier in that picture.

The color difference is a little puzzling though. Do the smart pot pines have their second growth and the nursery container pines don't? Were the smart pot pines moved at all (damaged roots) so that stunted growth would result? It almost looks like the smart pot pines stayed a little too dry, I don't know I'm just trying to rationalize the color difference and growth (to try to extrapolate to my pines).

Smart pots are great, but they lack the structure that protects the roots if you move the pine at all. The fabric also wicks away the moisture. I think Los Angeles gets pretty hot as well and that might be the difference (plastic retains more water over fabric, which wicks it away). I think colander growing would probably be the best of both worlds.

 

[Stan Kengai]

I would attribute the difference in color to using the same fertilizer regimen, which is what one would be likely to do when testing anything scientifically. You know, reducing the number of variables. I think if you gave the smart pots more fertilizer, they would be just as green.

 

[Catalyst05]

That's a good thought. Although I bet that the pines were fertilized equally (why would someone underfertilize smart pots just for the heck of it?). Fertilizer just needs to be in solution for a tree to absorb it, that's why I figured it was more of a watering issue/smart pots staying drier issue.

 

[edprocoat]

I don't know what made the diffewrence but the smart pot-ted plants are less healthy looking and smaller, they are shorter and the trunks look thinner too ?

ed

 

[cmeg1]

I personally like the look of the ones in the smart pots.Nice and compact,more needles,more green.I am gong to go out on a limb and say you will find a much more fibrous root system on the smart pot pines.
I grow all my trees in colanders.And anything that will air prune a root will give you a tree that really develops a pot full of roots,so fast in fact ,you may not be able to keep up with watering.
I have experienced this with deciduous stock in colanders.It is just what happens when a plant is continually air pruning every root tip.
Here is 2.5 months of growth on each tree from purchased last season.They were actually pruned also to a triangle.

 

[Paradox]

This is waaaay too small a sample size to conclude anything.

That said, if you really look at those trees, you can pretty much tell which ones were potted in the nursery pots (2 tallest ones in the first picture) and which were in the smart pots (two shorter, more compact ones).

Trees of the same species show different growth tendencies even under the same conditions. The two taller ones could naturally have more lanky growth simply because that's how those 2 are. I have some pitch pine seedlings sitting in the same type of pot and the same soil, side by side on the same bench that show differences in growth. That, besides the sample size is, to me inconclusive.

 

[0soyoung]

This is waaaay too small a sample size to conclude anything.

That may well be, but it seems to me that one needs to compare each tree to what it was before the experiment started - the comparison should be of the changes, not just how they are now.

How they are now may just reflect how they were in the beginning - no way to know unless there are similar before photos.

 

[Paradox]

but it seems to me that one needs to compare each tree to what it was before the experiment started - the comparison should be of the changes, not just how they are now.

How they are now may just reflect how they were in the beginning

This is what I was referring to in my post, however, the two taller ones were clearly taller at the start. The fact that they are taller at the end does not mean it was a result of the pot. The other two were shorter and more compact at the start as well as at the end.

The observed changes might have absolutely nothing to do with which pot they were grown in and more to do with the inherent growth traits of the plant itself. In fact, sample size aside, comparing before and after leads me to conclude that the pot made no difference at all.

 

[pga7602]

I did not state that this is an scientific experiment, or meant to conclude anything. Just wanted to point out that I never said, one "BEAT" the other. That was a reply on the thread by another person. I only said "Judging from the top, the plants took on different growth patterns."

I really just wanted to show some progression pics, whether it's valuable info or not, I'll let you decide. As for watering and fertilization, they are watered automatically by the same system at the same rate. They are all fertilize equally. I don't have enough time to try to give the smart pots more water.

The trunk thickness is an optical illusion. I thought the same thing, but when I took a caliper to them, they are all roughly the same width with 1 smart pot plant beating out the rest.

I will say that depending on how this goes, I may or may not start using smart pots for future growouts. I can safely say it's too early to tell at this point. Maybe next year when I repot and can see the roots.

Again... just sharing pics

 

[Paradox]

I only said "Judging from the top, the plants took on different growth patterns."

I would disagree with that observation and say that the growth patterns you see are a result of the inherent growth rates of the trees involved, not which pot they were in. There is already a noticible difference among the trees in your first picture.

Thanks for sharing though

 

[pga7602]

I would disagree with that observation and say that the growth patterns you see are a result of the inherent growth rates of the trees involved, not which pot they were in. There is already a noticible difference among the trees in your first picture.

Thanks for sharing though

I would be happy if it works out that the pots won't matter. Smart pots are not cheap!!

 

[Catalyst05]

I would disagree with that observation and say that the growth patterns you see are a result of the inherent growth rates of the trees involved, not which pot they were in. There is already a noticible difference among the trees in your first picture.

Thanks for sharing though

I disagree. It's quite possible that pots could be even a significant factor of how the trees actually grew. I think it's unreasonable to say that the difference is based only on "inherent growth rates" of the trees involved when most factors were reasonably controlled except for the difference in pot and the difference in the individuality of trees used. Just based on the color of the trees and the needle size, regardless of height/vigor, you can tell the two JBP in nursery containers are healthier. It's a classic nature vs. nurture argument. You say nature (trees determine how they grow). I say both (trees + conditions determine how they grow).

Unscientifically, if you were to ask me which pot I were to recommend to this person in Los Angeles under the same watering and fertilizing conditions based on the results of those pictures, I would say the nursery containers. It would defy common sense to say it's all about the individual tree, and to tell someone to go get some more smart pots because their "sample size is too low."

I would care more about science if I lived in a test tube. But unfortunately I don't, and neither do the pines. Guesses are all people, even scientists, get to work with.

 

[Paradox]

I disagree. It's quite possible that pots could be even a significant factor of how the trees actually grew. I think it's unreasonable to say that the difference is based only on "inherent growth rates" of the trees involved when most factors were reasonably controlled except for the difference in pot and the difference in the individuality of trees used. Just based on the color of the trees and the needle size, regardless of height/vigor, you can tell the two JBP in nursery containers are healthier. It's a classic nature vs. nurture argument. You say nature (trees determine how they grow). I say both (trees + conditions determine how they grow).

Unscientifically, if you were to ask me which pot I were to recommend to this person in Los Angeles under the same watering and fertilizing conditions based on the results of those pictures, I would say the nursery containers. It would defy common sense to say it's all about the individual tree, and to tell someone to go get some more smart pots because their "sample size is too low."

I would care more about science if I lived in a test tube. But unfortunately I don't, and neither do the pines. Guesses are all people, even scientists, get to work with.

If you seriously believe that the differences in the second photo were due to the pots, you need to go look at the before and after more closely because you are missing very important details in the comparison.

If you had a serious illness and someone offered you a drug that had been only tested on 4 people. It might have killed 2 of them and might have cured the other two but the results were inconclusive, would you take the drug?

I am a scientist, it is what I get paid to do. Yes, sometimes there are guesses, but I guarantee we dont take 4 results and make hard conclusions about what we see. Guessing without proper evidence (sample size) can lead to completely the wrong conclusion and have very dire consequences.
If you think science is all about test tubes and guessing, there is alot about the field you dont understand.

 

[0soyoung]

It's quite possible that pots could be even a significant factor of how the trees actually grew. ...

Yes, it is possible, but the evidence doesn't show that this possibility is necessarily true. The fact is that this "experiment" does not show it to matter what container one chooses. As you say, it doesn't disprove the possibility that a container-type is superior. This is a 'null experiment'.

Guesses are all people, even scientists, get to work with.

Not quite. While it is true that scientists make guesses of what might be true (hypotheses), they judge whether it is indeed true, based on the evidence/data from experiments. It is easy to be fooled by coincidence/chance - science is working methodically to avoid being fooled. It can be hard. It can be difficult. But it is quite rewarding if one wants to learn something on their own.

 

[Catalyst05]

If you seriously believe that the differences in the second photo were due to the pots, you need to go look at the before and after more closely because you are missing very important details in the comparison.

If you had a serious illness and someone offered you a drug that had been only tested on 4 people. It might have killed 2 of them and might have cured the other two but the results were inconclusive, would you take the drug?

I am a scientist, it is what I get paid to do. Yes, sometimes there are guesses, but I guarantee we dont take 4 results and make hard conclusions about what we see. Guessing without proper evidence (sample size) can lead to completely the wrong conclusion and have very dire consequences.
If you think science is all about test tubes and guessing, there is alot about the field you dont understand.

I just saw your point, that the difference in the two pictures is due solely to the starting plant, as outrageous. Most obviously, since he put the plants in different pots, the different pots could be a factor (one of many) that contributed to the difference (even significantly), not just the starting plant.

Also outrageous, is your assertion that you need a bigger sample size to conclude anything, and then a hypocritical conclusion that pot difference had nothing to do with the difference in growth.

Science doesn't mean we should abandon common sense. When an experiment is casual/harmless, results can still be useful despite a "non-scientific" experiment. Obviously in other situations, like before you treat people (as opposed to plants) with certain medications, the repercussions are much different, and the scenario changes a bit, don't you think? But if 4 trials is all I had to work with and I had to make a decision immediately, you can be sure I would look at the 4 results in making whatever decision need be made.

I don't mean to offend you as a scientist, I'm just saying science has its flaws as everything does. Look no further than studies on certain things we consume. For example, coffee. Do you not drink coffee because of "inconsistent" results in different scientific studies purporting its benefits and drawbacks? Also, which one is healthier, butter or margarine? Science, as does all experimentation, serves to bring more information to the table so we can use that information in the decisions we make.

 

[Paradox]

Also outrageous, is your assertion that you need a bigger sample size to conclude anything, and then a hypocritical conclusion that pot difference had nothing to do with the difference in growth.

It isn't outrageous at all, it is common sense. You just cant say with any definitive confidence that this says the pots make any difference at all.

The two trees started in the nursery pots were bigger than the ones started in the other pots so naturally they are going to be bigger at the end... One of the trees in the smart pots looks a bit sickly. Can you definitely say it was because of the pot or could something else be a factor such as a fungus, an bug infestation? No you cant. The other tree looks fine. So you base your assertion on a 50% result? That is really conclusive....

The thought that this is in any way conclusive is laughable. I am sorry you cant understand that.

 

[edprocoat]

Well, just how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop ?

ed

 

[edprocoat]

A question for the scientists here, where did the op say the plants in the before and after photos are arranged in the same order in each photo. Is there a chance that maybe the smart pots may have plant #1 and plant #3 from the first photo ?

ed