You want to aim for *slightly* higher nutrient level than the plants actually require. This means happy plants and as most pond plants are not carbon limited , they grow and are able to withstand almost anything .
I definitely prefer nutrients in the soil, because that's the zone where they're most needed.
But as the link above explains, dosing the water column is also a very effective method. Simply because healthy plants lead to a healthy pond.
Thanks everyone for their responses. It's a pretty healthy pond (apart from one thing which I may post at one point) with hardly any algae and with good, healthy plants - I just wondered whether I should stick anything in the soil to feed them or not. Will try some of the Osmocotes I think, burying them in the baskets and see whether I end up with 9ft bulrushes like the chap in the link.
In the interests of forum harmony, what I take from the answers and from my own researches is that:
all plants need feeding
aquatic plants have the capacity to take some of what they need from the water they live in
So depending on the pond's site / situation / general health, you might need to feed them.
darren, I've enjoyed your comments hugely . Most informative.
I agree that many gardeners tend to get stuck in their ways and not keep up. Roses being planted with the union below ground, where it used to be the done thing to have the union above being an example.
My comments are based on growing up with a father who was chemical mad.
Chemicals chemicals chemicals.
So I learned that only bad things happen fast in an aquatic environment.
But yes, hostafan, people- especially when it comes to ponds are UNFATHOMABLY DEFENSIVE and extremely prejudiced to new ideas when it comes to ponds.
Saying that, a lot of my recommendations are nothing new, certainly a lot is based on work done in the 1980's and proven to give results and made popular by amateurs and people in the hobby.
Now there's real , hard science behind it but some folk insist that ' its not what my parents did, or my grandad did it this way for 47 years and yada yada yada' and become quite aggressive in defending ideas that are scientifically wrong.
Posts
I'd say natural ponds with abundant soil will be able to support plants indefinitely, simply due to the abundance of life at various levels.
Rubisco is the most important compound/ chemical reaction on this planet. Without it... Well ... We'd be bacteria. Or dead.
Its a critical chemical reaction for converting carbon into sugar inside chloroplasts
I can't post links on my phone
But this thread will explain a lot.
I definitely prefer nutrients in the soil, because that's the zone where they're most needed.
But as the link above explains, dosing the water column is also a very effective method. Simply because healthy plants lead to a healthy pond.
Just look at how healthy, robust and happy those plants are!
Edd - no probs - good luck with your search!
Thanks everyone for their responses. It's a pretty healthy pond (apart from one thing which I may post at one point) with hardly any algae and with good, healthy plants - I just wondered whether I should stick anything in the soil to feed them or not. Will try some of the Osmocotes I think, burying them in the baskets and see whether I end up with 9ft bulrushes like the chap in the link.
In the interests of forum harmony, what I take from the answers and from my own researches is that:
all plants need feeding
aquatic plants have the capacity to take some of what they need from the water they live in
So depending on the pond's site / situation / general health, you might need to feed them.
Still welcome any thoughts!
Are we gonna riot?
If plants are in baskets then they are confined and have less ability to root out and find nourishment.
But all ponds are different.
Nutrients in soil eventually leach into the water column
If you factor in feeding any fish , then there could be enough fish waste to act as plant food, probably only likely with goldfish/ koi though.
First thing is to add native oxygenating plants, starwort for example, its a beauty.
Next you want plants to cover some of the water surface, nymphaea alba is great for big ponds.
Then marginals, things like acorus calamus, botomus umbellatus, pseudocorus- all great for flowers , spiky foliage for nymphs to climb up.
And marginals for the edges, such as veronica beccabunga, watercress, water forget me not, and the wonderful baldelia ranunculoides.
All UK native.
darren, I've enjoyed your comments hugely . Most informative.
I agree that many gardeners tend to get stuck in their ways and not keep up. Roses being planted with the union below ground, where it used to be the done thing to have the union above being an example.
We're never too old to learn.
But are the modern ways always the best, give it a few years and it will all be back to how it was,
Chemicals chemicals chemicals.
So I learned that only bad things happen fast in an aquatic environment.
But yes, hostafan, people- especially when it comes to ponds are UNFATHOMABLY DEFENSIVE and extremely prejudiced to new ideas when it comes to ponds.
Saying that, a lot of my recommendations are nothing new, certainly a lot is based on work done in the 1980's and proven to give results and made popular by amateurs and people in the hobby.
Now there's real , hard science behind it but some folk insist that ' its not what my parents did, or my grandad did it this way for 47 years and yada yada yada' and become quite aggressive in defending ideas that are scientifically wrong.