If it’s a thing about algae growth and it taking available nutrients I can see where he’s coming from, but only as a hypothetical. In practice it never seems to have that large of an effect if at all. Even if we say it has a minor impact I’d say the benefits outweigh it just based on being able to get a clear visual of the moisture level of the soil and the size/health of the root system
Exactly! And even a significant amount of algae build up in a clear pot is very deceiving because it gives the impression that algae has taken over when it’s only along the very thin side layer of medium exposed to light. The majority of the root system is not dealing with algae competition.
Everyone seems to be somehow misinterpreting his post. Never once did he say that clear pots produce bad results. In fact he never even said that clear pots are bad. He simply stated that opaque pots produce better root formation COMPARED to clear pots. Now I am not fully endorsing that statement, however simply showing plants that are alive in clear pots is literally not evidence to the contrary of his assertion. Showing wild plants is not evidence to the contrary of his post. By Justin Jones assertion, a wild plant is growing slightly less efficiently than it would if it's roots were not exposed to sunlight. Similarly, wild plants would grow better if someone sprinkled osmocot on them every 180 days. He is simply stating that if you are looking to minmax every bit of your growing conditions, opaque pots seem to allow for more optimal root development. The way to disprove this idea would be to have a batch of the same seeds with half grown in clear and half grown in opaque pots and then the root mass measured after a given amount of time.
Are you suggesting collector aroids grow better in captivity than in nature, where they’ve existed for MILLIONS of years?? Do you even realize the plant species we flaunt on social media are genetically MILLIONS of years ahead of us? They have been doing JUST FINE in the wild with some light exposure to their root system. Have you seen my video of the GIGANTIC anthuriums found in nature? Those epiphytic and hemiepiphytic aroids get massive with roots partially or completely exposed to indirect sunlight. Wild populations of aroids easily surpass and outshine 99% of specimens in captivity.
@@plantgayforlifeyou're still attempting to strawman this and turn it into a black and white situation. Yet again, it was never said that light exposure kills plants or prevents them from growing. Still you seem to ignore the concept that my original comment is making. I never said that plants in the wild suffer or that they are worse than plants in captivity. The simple point that Justin Jones is making, is that those same wild plants, could have SLIGHTLY INCREASED root mass, if there was zero light exposure. Again, that is the claim and that claim is not proven wrong by simply showing plants that are alive. Without comparative data, saying "I grow in clear pots" means nothing to his point. You could choose to call him out on HIS lack of comparative data as well, which would be perfectly valid, otherwise you are having two different conversations.
@@plantgayforlife if you could please point to where in my comment that I ever suggested that "collector aroids" grow better in captivity than in nature. I'm not sure if you are purposefully misconstruing these arguments in order to feel better about your husbandry decisions or are just misunderstanding. The concept is simple, light can inhibit root formation, development, and efficiency. This is well documented in botany; when roots begin to photosynthesize, they are slightly less efficient at development and nutrient uptake because part of their energy/process is now converted to photosynthesis. This does not mean that roots exposed to light are inherently bad or kill your plant or stop your plant from growing entirely. It simply means that when compared to an IDENTICAL specimen whos roots have had no light exposure, that the root mass will be larger and more efficient (even if only .1% more efficient, this is still more efficient) on the clone with no light exposure to the roots. THIS DOES NOT MEAN plants that have exposed roots are inherently worse than some random plant with unexposed roots. Plants can grow perfectly fine in nature and captivity with light exposure to the roots, however there is a measurable (not saying significant) advantage to preventing light exposure to the roots.
Yep.. not to mention that some roots turn green bc they photosynthesize 😊 💚
Biggest leaf contest 😂😂😂 Caught me off guard 😅
Iz the truth!
This needed to be said and I can’t get enough of it!
👏👏👏👏
Love these characters who are so right on fb groups and no one else shall be heard...🤣🌱
Literal Google scholars and armchair botanists
@@plantgayforlife yep, they Know Everything...
If it’s a thing about algae growth and it taking available nutrients I can see where he’s coming from, but only as a hypothetical. In practice it never seems to have that large of an effect if at all. Even if we say it has a minor impact I’d say the benefits outweigh it just based on being able to get a clear visual of the moisture level of the soil and the size/health of the root system
Exactly! And even a significant amount of algae build up in a clear pot is very deceiving because it gives the impression that algae has taken over when it’s only along the very thin side layer of medium exposed to light. The majority of the root system is not dealing with algae competition.
Everyone seems to be somehow misinterpreting his post. Never once did he say that clear pots produce bad results. In fact he never even said that clear pots are bad. He simply stated that opaque pots produce better root formation COMPARED to clear pots. Now I am not fully endorsing that statement, however simply showing plants that are alive in clear pots is literally not evidence to the contrary of his assertion. Showing wild plants is not evidence to the contrary of his post. By Justin Jones assertion, a wild plant is growing slightly less efficiently than it would if it's roots were not exposed to sunlight. Similarly, wild plants would grow better if someone sprinkled osmocot on them every 180 days. He is simply stating that if you are looking to minmax every bit of your growing conditions, opaque pots seem to allow for more optimal root development. The way to disprove this idea would be to have a batch of the same seeds with half grown in clear and half grown in opaque pots and then the root mass measured after a given amount of time.
Are you suggesting collector aroids grow better in captivity than in nature, where they’ve existed for MILLIONS of years?? Do you even realize the plant species we flaunt on social media are genetically MILLIONS of years ahead of us? They have been doing JUST FINE in the wild with some light exposure to their root system. Have you seen my video of the GIGANTIC anthuriums found in nature? Those epiphytic and hemiepiphytic aroids get massive with roots partially or completely exposed to indirect sunlight. Wild populations of aroids easily surpass and outshine 99% of specimens in captivity.
@@plantgayforlifeyou're still attempting to strawman this and turn it into a black and white situation. Yet again, it was never said that light exposure kills plants or prevents them from growing. Still you seem to ignore the concept that my original comment is making. I never said that plants in the wild suffer or that they are worse than plants in captivity. The simple point that Justin Jones is making, is that those same wild plants, could have SLIGHTLY INCREASED root mass, if there was zero light exposure. Again, that is the claim and that claim is not proven wrong by simply showing plants that are alive. Without comparative data, saying "I grow in clear pots" means nothing to his point. You could choose to call him out on HIS lack of comparative data as well, which would be perfectly valid, otherwise you are having two different conversations.
@@plantgayforlife if you could please point to where in my comment that I ever suggested that "collector aroids" grow better in captivity than in nature. I'm not sure if you are purposefully misconstruing these arguments in order to feel better about your husbandry decisions or are just misunderstanding. The concept is simple, light can inhibit root formation, development, and efficiency. This is well documented in botany; when roots begin to photosynthesize, they are slightly less efficient at development and nutrient uptake because part of their energy/process is now converted to photosynthesis. This does not mean that roots exposed to light are inherently bad or kill your plant or stop your plant from growing entirely. It simply means that when compared to an IDENTICAL specimen whos roots have had no light exposure, that the root mass will be larger and more efficient (even if only .1% more efficient, this is still more efficient) on the clone with no light exposure to the roots. THIS DOES NOT MEAN plants that have exposed roots are inherently worse than some random plant with unexposed roots. Plants can grow perfectly fine in nature and captivity with light exposure to the roots, however there is a measurable (not saying significant) advantage to preventing light exposure to the roots.
@XBOSHIFY443 good lord thank you
Who’s Justin Jones? 😂
Exactly
Oh shit. I didnt realize rosie odonnel was making plant youtube vids 🎉