Root mass is everything. It is the foundation that the plant builds on and from.
Leaves are not functionally capable of the efficient uptake of water and salts as are roots, by design.
UB
leaves may not be capable of taking water and nutrients from the ground, which is why plants invented roots... but they're certainly capable of taking atmospheric nitrogen in the form of various nitrogen oxides, and also foliar applied nitrogen too. Plants can also take atmospheric sulfur and utilise it. If all nutrients are provided in a foliar feed then this is even more effective than feeding through the roots. foliar feeding is often used to bring an under fertilised plant back quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliar_feeding
The water thing is up in the air, but there are plenty of species of plants that survive just fine utilising water gained from morning dew and rains. It would be an interesting experiment to try and feed both water and nutrients, by-passing the root system completely.
Dr. Carl Whitcomb, Inventor
Dr. Whitcomb, inventor of Rootmaker® Products, holds a Ph.D. from Iowa State University and was a professor at Oklahoma State University for 13 years. An expert on plant root systems, he has been published in hundreds of trade and technical magazines. He is the author of four books, including "Know It and Grow It" and "Plant Production in Containers."
A distinguished researcher who discovered air-root-pruning, Dr. Whitcomb has received dozens of honors from groups such as the American Association of Nurserymen, the Oklahoma Horticultural Society, the International Society of Arboriculture, the Association of Garden Writers and Nursery Business Magazine.
He received his Ph.D. in horticulture, plant ecology, and agronomy from Iowa State University in 1969. He was a professor at Oklahoma State University 1972 - 1985, then began his own horticultural research company, Lacebark Inc. Root constriction pruning grew from a chance observation in 1967. He was the first to perform air-root-pruning in 1968 using milk cartons with bottoms removed. This eventually lead to RootMaker®, RootBuilder®, RootTrapper®, and Knit Fabric In-Ground Containers. Accomplishments include: four books (Plant Production in Containers II, Production of Landscape Plants II (in the field), Know It and Grow It III, and Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants II), 26 patents (container designs, Dynamite® crapemyrtle, etc.), papers published in several hundred journal and technical publications, and numerous nursery industry awards.
Again, it's an issue of efficiency. If you want to provide all your plant's nutrition via the leaves, good luck.
Given a properly aerated/structured soil, plants grown outdoors in the ground will always be more robust, healthier and productive than plants grown in small pots.
Dr. Carl Whitcomb, horticulturist, professor and inventor didn't design his RootMaker line of containers based on whims expressed by gimmick addicted stoners. His methods and container materials are based on basic botanical principles after years of research. I'm currently using his Rootbuilder material and have used Griffin's Spin-Out to increase root mass for increased water and salts uptake.
UB
ROOT RESTRICTION OF APPLE AND PEACH WITH IN-GROUND FABRIC CONTAINERS
http://www.actahort.org/books/322/322_23.htm
[TD="align: left"] Author: [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]S.C. Myers[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"] Abstract:
Unfeathered trees of ‘Golden Delicious’/MMIII apple and ‘Winblo’/Lovell peach were planted conventionally (control) or in in-ground fabric containers of 0.02, 0.043 or 0.1 m[SUP]3[/SUP] volume. Apple trees were trained to a central leader with minimal pruning. Peach trees were unpruned and developed natural crown. Peach and apple trees in all treatments were developed as nonsupported, free-standing trees. All trees were allowed to crop naturally and remained unthinned. Root restriction reduced canopy volume in apple and peach; and within container treatments, growth control increased linearly with decreasing container volume. During the third growing season, there was no treatment difference in fruit number per tree, total fruit weight per tree, or mean fruit size in peach. An average 44% reduction in tree size resulted in an increase in yield efficiency in root-restricted peach trees. Fruit-maturity period was concentrated and advanced in peach trees grown in fabric containers.
In the third season of growth, apple trees grown in fabric containers had a higher flower cluster number and percent fruit set than control trees. Within container treatments, flower cluster and fruit number per limb increased linearly with decreasing container volume.[/TD]
Fruiting and nonfruiting `Washington' peach trees were grown in 2.4 (small) or 9-liter (large) containers to determine the influence of root confinement and fruiting on vegetative growth, fruit growth and quality, CO, assimilation (A), and carbohydrate content. Shoot length, fruit diameter, A, and leaf carbohydrates were measured weekly. Thirteen weeks after transplanting, trees were divided into roots, shoots, leaves, and fruit for dry weight measurement. The dry weight of all organs except fruit was reduced by root confinement, and only the weight of stems formed the previous season was not reduced by fruiting. Fruit dry weight was 30.0 g/tree for large- and small-container treatments, causing the yield efficiency (g fruit/g total dry wt) to be 50% higher for confined trees. Fruit red color, weight, and diameter were unaffected by root confinement, but higher flesh firmness and a more green ground color of the fruit surface from root-confined trees suggested that confinement delayed maturity. Vegetative growth was not reduced by lack of nonstructural carbohydrates in confined trees. A was reduced by root confinement on only the first of 11 measurement dates, whereas fruiting increased A on 5 of 8 measurement dates before fruit harvest. Fruit removal reduced A by 23% and 31% for nonconfined and confined trees, respectively, within 48 h of harvest. Leaf starch, sucrose, sorbitol, and total carbohydrate levels were negatively correlated with A when data were pooled, but inconsistent responses of A to carbohydrate content indicated that factors other than feedback inhibition were also responsible for the reduction in A on nonfruited trees. We hypothesized that a physiological signal originating in roots of confined trees reduced vegetativegrowth without reducing fruit growth.
http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/120/2/228.short
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by this statement.
Air pruning is just another method of root mass restriction. whether you bind the roots or cut them off it's all the same thing.
I gave you a link bozo.
Wrong, has nothing to do with restriction, quite the opposite. Do your homework.
UB
I checked the link. it leads to a site that you need to be a member of to view the thread... and i have no intention of making an account just to look at some guy's thread. If you have anything real to share then please do. here is that question again:
Are you saying it is less efficient to feed a plant through the leaves? If so, can you explain in what way?
Hard headedness leads to ignorance.
Are you kidding me? Of course it's less efficient. Leaves don't have root hairs, there are no nutrients in the air. Someone needs to learn something about mama natur's ecosystem and botany. I'm not here to spoon feed anyone.
By monitoring the disappearance of ammonia from an airstream flowing through a small growth chamber containing a single plant seedling, it was discovered that plant leaves absorb significant quantities of ammonia from the air, even at naturally occurring low atmospheric concentrations. The measured absorption rates of ammonia showed large diurnal fluctuations and varied somewhat among species, but differed little with the nitrogen fertility level of plants within a species.
Thirty-day-old corn seedlings, grown in the greenhouse with different concentrations of supplemental nitrate nitrogen, were moved to a constant-temperature growth chamber and sealed in a 560-liter tent made of polyvinyl chloride. The plants were exposed to air containing ammonia labeled with nitrogen-15 (1, 10, and 20 parts per million) for 24 hours and then harvested. The nitrogen-15 content of the tops and roots showed that at 1 part per million 43 percent of the ammonia was absorbed, whereas at 10 and 20 parts per million, 30 percent of the ammonia was absorbed. The results demonstrate that growing plants may be a natural sink for atmospheric ammonia.
Soils and plants can absorb more S than is brought down in rain (Johansson, 1960). Much of the S absorbed from the air by light sandy soils (Mann, 1955) during the autumn, winter and spring is lost by leaching and only that absorbed by soil during crop growth can be used. The crop can also absorb atmospheric S directly through the leaves; the amounts may be larger than soils supply when crops have a leaf-area index larger than 1 (Olsen, 1957; Spedding, 1969).
Root tip termination aka "root pruning" via air or copper hydroxide is not restricting shit, apples and oranges.
Root TIP pruning induces a massive output of fine roots which results in 10 times the potential uptake of water and nutrients based on a 4" rule that applies to root output and elongation, as explained by Dr. Carl Whitcomb. You need to register at Riddle and read the thread if you're truly interested in getting an education, or at least get a book on indoor plant culture.
RAM (root apical meristem) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meristem, check it out.