I await Pats /hortis suggestion on what fertilizer she thinks is best for daylilys for the future and for my particular soil situation..

since two specialist have agreed its a highly unusual soil test result...

All the years past when the greenery was lush dark green , the plants multiplied so much they had to be divided every three years

the scapes bloomed tall as they were suppose to..and blooms huge...and formed pretty

I used 10 10 10 on march lst dug down around the entire daylily plant about three tablespoons per plant about 4 inches outward from the center of each plant..

so Pat /thank you

and thanks to those members that are concerned and took the time to post for the compassion and kindness...you have shown me..and not being critical...

After a couple Treemails discussing the situation, Sheri sent copies of her test results for me to ponder.

She said the head of the soil testing lab called them "head scratching results" that he'd only seen once or twice. This was no help or reassurance to her!

It's true though, that the results are unexpected and some are conflicting. We were expecting high copper. The copper is very high in the soil. But not in the plant tissue test! In fact the tissue copper level was bordering on "deficient"!!😮

Maurice @admmad cited the case of the orchard where the high copper was not causing the problems. Instead there were deficiencies in other nutrients and that appears to be happening here. This reinforces his emphasis on the importance of obtaining both soil and tissue tests. Sue @sooby emphasizes this too, as have others.

Another puzzle - Sue (sooby) noted that low K can cause short scapes. This soil test showed very low K (potassium) - only 58 pounds per acre versus a preferred level more like 3 times that. Problem solved? Not evidently so - the plant tissue test level was between "adequate and high"! So there was no indication that low K was the cause.

I thought the soil phosphorus level was likely to be high. It is - almost off the chart - 382 lbs/acre versus recommended around 60! Phosphorus can cause stunting. Problem solved? Not for sure - the plant tissue level is in fact high and over that line, approaching excessive. So it's almost certainly a problem to be addressed but it's not a simple solution because there are other things going on.

There are some issues with magnesium, manganese, sulfur, zinc, and iron. And maybe boron.

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is low at 8.7, which is about normal for a fairly sandy soil as Sheri said it is. But it's not beneficial.

The organic matter is low as indicated by a C:N ratio of 10.2:1. I am wondering if this has dropped rather suddenly in recent years. Sheri said they put potting mix in each hole when the daylilies were planted. Most potting mixes have a lot of organic matter. The OM is important for holding nutrients in the soil until needed. The Milorganite she added is 85% organic matter and should have helped a little too. But OM decomposes rapidly in warm climate soils. The nutrient reserves, along with the buffering capacity of the CEC, may have dropped recently leaving the plants unable to obtain the right balance of nutrients at high demand times such as scape and bud development. So the main objective of the fertilizing plan I'm trying to develop is to improve the nutrient reserves in the soil while trying to figure how to either/or/and reduce the levels of the excessive nutrients.

And I'm trying to do this without suggesting a massive overhaul of the bed because it's beyond what she can do. It appears from the research reading I've been doing that we can start with some simple applications of surface applied materials to correct certain of the deficiencies. Then we'll see how the plants respond next year before making any more adjustments.

I want to make some comments and observations about other aspects of fertilization issues in general too. There are a number of things happening in this soil situation that apply to many other situations and I appreciate that Sheri is willing to let her data be shared for others to learn from! Thanks Sheri!!🙏🏻

@Sheridragonfly

By the way, there were a couple issues that were mentioned that I wanted to cover.

First, Sheri's plants are not "poisoned". Even if certain elements had been very high right now, that wouldn't have been permanent. Plants can gradually excrete excess chemicals (nutrients, not herbicides) once they are growing in a soil that is not excessively high in them.

But, according to the tissue test they are not extremely high in any chemical, which is good! Once the soil situation is corrected they should be back to multiplying lushly and producing those tall scapes full of gorgeous flowers!

I would be amazed and delighted if they sprang back to normal next summer but I don't expect that. I do hope to see noticeable improvement! If so, it should give us clues about to do next.

Pat

For the tissue test did they compare with the normals specifically for daylilies or with a generic plant?

Edited to remove a duplicate post and reply to @sooby
Sue, I suppose it's a standardized reference "plant". I don't have my saved data for a daylily analysis handy but I bet you do! 👍🏻 So here are the plant tissue analysis numbers if you would like to compare them:
In %:
N 4.04 P 0.26 K 2.53 Mg 0.25 Ca 1.55 S 0.20.
In ppm:
B 29 Zn 54 Mn 84 Fe 175 Cu 5

Here's their graph of the comparison to the reference plant:



And for comparison here's their graph of the comparison to the soil levels to standard reference levels:



The actual soil levels in lbs/Acre (furrow slice - 6" deep) were:
P 382 K 58 Mg 102 Ca 1665 S 4 B 0.3 Zn 19.7 Mn 20 Fe 160 Cu 5.3

I'll discuss these results in another post maybe tonight or tomorrow, just posting them now for the curious and to show the unusual and unexpected contrast between the levels in the plant versus the soil.

Pat

copper sulfate is what you put down the drain to kill tree roots in your septic line. I'd never use it anywhere near a garden, it kills things.

Frillylily, I understand that concern. Whenever something is used as a herbicide in some way, it gives the impression it's deadly. Which it is, but it depends on how it's being used. As Maurice (admmad) said, whether it's deadly often depends on how much is used, and how. For tree root control they're pouring pure copper sulfate crystals into a toilet and flushing it down into the sewer pipes. That's strong!

For a fungicide spray a very small quantity is diluted in a lot of water and then sprayed over a number of plants. Done according to the directions on the package, no harm will be done. After many, many applications the copper can build up in the soil and inhibit plant growth. That's become a problem in some places such as vineyards in Europe which have applied copper fungicides for 150 years. Note, 150 years. Sheri applied some to her daylilies for just 1 (one!) year, once monthly for 6 months at the diluted rate - as directed on the label.

When I was in Yellowstone I learned the Wheat Rust Control crews used salt - the same as table salt- to kill wild barberry shrubs by piling several pounds on them around the base of the stems. We don't usually say table salt kills plants (people maybe).

In fact you can kill most kinds of plants with a large enough quantity of any kind of salt. Most fertilizers are salts. Pile a handful of a fertilizer directly around the stem of a plant and watch it die. We don't usually say that fertilizers kill things, though, because that's not the way we use them.

Copper sulfate is, chemically, a "salt". When it's poured down a drain it's to use the "salt" effect to damage the roots. But copper also has a specific stunting effect on roots, so it's doubly effective at killing or stunting the roots it contacts.

The sulfate is the form of sulfur that plants *normally* absorb. Sulfur is a necessary plant nutrient and plants use a fairly large amount. Sulfate is generally a beneficial and non-damaging chemical in gardens at low concentrations. It's completely soluble and any excess tends to move deep into the soil out of the plants' reach.

So, copper is the toxic element in copper sulfate, but only when there's too much of it. Copper is also an essential element for plant growth. Only very small amounts are needed, though.

This only relates tangentially to the issues with Sheri's daylilies. The copper is high in her daylily garden's soil but as I already reported, not in the daylily plants. So we have to look elsewhere to solve those problems.

Pat

Edited to correct the number of years Sheri used the fungicide - Just 1 year , NOT for 4 years as I wrote before. She used it 4 years ago, that's where I picked up that number.

Hi @NMoasis
Thank you for the acorns! You are very generous 🙏🏻

Pat

Since first daylily plant I bought
Over 15 years ago and me dividing my daylilys every three years

That's about five times dug up and given away or sold a few over that fifteen years from the start

I have never seen frilly tentacles
Among the oblong nice healthy tubers nor any stunting

Everyone of the daylilys since the six times once a month in that one growing season four years ago
I sprayed copper sulfate spray which it said ok for roses and other plants

The frilly tentacle roots began to appear on every daylily plant and stunting of the buds and scapes

Today digging up five plants different beds all same soil
The tubers are shriveling and lots of frilly tentacles among the roots of every plant

I think they will never lose those tentacles or damage and then grow back tall scapes and blooms
Even moved to a new perennial bed
Nearby

I will follow pats advice the best I can financially and physically

Here are some I dug this weekend notice the unusual frilly tentacles
On one the tubers are actually disappearing I did not replant or take a pic of that one

Also will show you the soil it's good texture to me black crumbly way below is red clay but so much potting soil was added bought and best sold in bags over 15 years every time I divided the daylilys or bought a new daylily

Anyway I think as the two with phds said it's a rare occurrence in the soil and what caused it but still can not be sure I have to stop worrying about it

I moved about 12 plants in the last two weeks which changes my perennial bed design to my dismay for my photography by planting the 12 daylilys in that perennial bed of salvias clematis and phlox and the one butterfly bush

Anyway two years ago when I sought help from the extension office and a university I might have saved all those gorgeous daylilys had they found that this was something they could have learned from and helped others in the future

Plants are a part of me and my life
Because I have feelings for plants animals and nature guess most of you do too!

I will keep post July 23 daylilys I lifted and washed off the roots with well water and replanted in the perennial bed this weekend.

They would not download on this long post. Will add the dug up replanted daylily of which I spoke of in this post on next post dated July 24 2022

Pics below of strange damage to previous healthy daylilys

Sunday July 24 2022
Here are the daylily pics of 12 of my favorite I dug and replanted in the perennial bed

So many I could not dig due to no where to plant them to see if different soil where copper sulfate was never sprayed as it was 6 times that one year.

Physically it was perseverance to dig 12 wash and trim mix potting soil and my own perennial bed natural soil that is part of the land

and clean up all the tools buckets water hose gloves clothes shoes wheelbarrow.

Then clean up our beautiful centipede grass from any daylily debris where I was doing the work sitting in the grass washing and trimming the 12 daylilys

Then best part of the day
finally my shower and a nice grilled outside hamburger for lunch!

Best while working to not think about the physical labor and pain
Nor cleanup or I would never get it done.

Notice the frilly tentacles among the roots or tubers they are taking over and tubers diminishing

I am going to follow pats advice and I deeply appreciate beyond words that she took this to heart and is doing all this calculating , listening, observation and tree mails with me!

I will never take her for granted nor anyone else that replied and posted trying to advise on soil and plant tests and that care

I will continue next spring to show the scapes and if they are blooming tall as they used to do with lovely large blooms!

So we can all watch to see what else pat has to teach us or anyone else on the site that contributes about their scapes buds and soil.

I'll reply to Sheri's post after this. I was in the process of copying from a post by Greg @Sscape from way back on May 17, 2015 in a thread called "Short Scapes::

"I had a problem with short scapes, too. Over a period of four years I went from about 20% short scapes, to over 50%. I thought it was the weather, but I knew that it was not that simple. I posed the question to the AHS Robin. Pat Stamile said to give the plants more Nitrogen. This was last year. At Tractor Supply (while getting some things for my wife's hobby: chickens), I saw a bag of 30-0-17 fertilizer for lawns. I got it and sprinkled some around each plant last early September--then again in mid March this year. In early April I sprinkled some 13-13-13 around each plant. Voila! Short scapes down to less than 10%, and flowers better than ever! Thanks to you, Mr. Stamile!"

I've Tmailed Greg for follow up but I want to note that I was encouraged by his experience, because I was already considering asking Sheri to apply a high nitrogen, zero phosphorus slow-release lawn fertilizer to see if it would overcome part of the problem with the stunted root systems, and in turn the stunted scapes.

I'm also going to suggest using some Epsom salt for magnesium, some potassium sulfate, and perhaps a little borax for boron. That will be all for this fall. We'll see how the daylilies respond. They should produce some better leaf growth this fall and into the spring.

I might ask Sheri to do another soil test in late winter to see if it's improved going into the spring and what to add at that time.

I foresee adding *small* additions of high nitrogen plus potassium lawn fertilizer regularly, one with a very slow-release form of nitrogen. Even though the nitrogen level in the *leaf* tissue sample looks high I think the scapes are not getting enough in the spring and summer as they are trying to rapidly expand.

As you can see from the pictures she just posted, the roots are stunted and consequently not as spread out as they could be. But they are otherwise actually healthy looking. They are possibly being affected by the high copper, which can specifically stunt roots at the point of initiation. But the further culprit would be the high phosphorus which has a general stunting effect.

I want to make an important point here: plants are not like animals. When people and animals are stunted, it's permanent. If an annual plant like corn is stunted it may be permanent. But strong perennial plants like daylilies can recover and grow out of stunting once the adverse situation is corrected.

Sheri's daylilies will be glorious again when the soil problems are corrected. It will take some time. I do think that most of them can be looking much better by bloom season next year though, as Greg experienced.

Pat

sooby said: For the tissue test did they compare with the normals specifically for daylilies or with a generic plant?

I replied to this post by Sue @sooby by editing an earlier post and I realized no one probably saw it so I'm repeating it here because it has the test results from Sheri's daylilies and soil:

Sue, I suppose it's a standardized reference "plant". I don't have my saved data for a daylily analysis handy but I bet you do! 👍🏻 So here are the plant tissue analysis numbers if you would like to compare them:
In %:
N 4.04 P 0.26 K 2.53 Mg 0.25 Ca 1.55 S 0.20.
In ppm:
B 29 Zn 54 Mn 84 Fe 175 Cu 5

Here's their graph of the comparison to the reference plant:



And for comparison here's their graph of the actual versus standard recommended soil levels.


I thought we needed to have these where people could see them before further discussion.

Now I'll respond to Sheri's root pictures.

Pat

Hortaholic said: Sheri's daylilies will be glorious again when the soil problems are corrected. It will take some time. I do think that most of them can be looking much better by bloom season next year though, as Greg experienced.

Pat

I should mention one thing about Greg's post. I don't recommend 13-13-13 for use in any garden. Without a soil test.

WITHOUT A SOIL TEST NEVER USE:
20-20-20
13-13-13
12-12-12
10-10–0
8-8-8
5-10-5
5-10-10
6-4-0 (Milorganite)

Anything that doesn't have a zero in the middle!

That's the number for *phosphorus (P)*. I had trouble remembering which number stood for what until I realized they are in alphabetic order by the written names:
nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P),
potassium (K).

Sheri's daylily roots are stunted in part because of excess phosphorus in the soil. The high copper may also be contributing because it specifically inhibits roots at the site of initiation.

Also, despite the potting mix and Milorganite she's been adding, both of which have some organic matter, it hasn't been enough to build and keep the organic matter high enough to give the soil good "buffering" capacity and store nitrogen for feeding the plant year round. The C:N ratio of this soil, an indicator of organic matter content, is about 10:1. A desirable level would in the range of 24:1 to 30:1. It's possible to get around the limitations of this by being careful about the fertilizers and other additives used.

My view of the root systems in Sheri's pictures may be different from hers. I think the root systems in the first 2 pictures are the healthiest. The leaves associated with them were evidently long and a good rich green, not stunted.

I'll continue later in another post.

Pat

Edited to add comment about phosphorus and NPK.

Hortaholic said::

Sue, I suppose it's a standardized reference "plant". I don't have my saved data for a daylily analysis handy but I bet you do! 👍🏻 So here are the plant tissue analysis numbers if you would like to compare them:
In %:
N 4.04 P 0.26 K 2.53 Mg 0.25 Ca 1.55 S 0.20.
In ppm:
B 29 Zn 54 Mn 84 Fe 175 Cu 5
.

Pat

I have the normals for daylily hybrids taken from the Plant Analysis Handbook II. I'm assuming the leaves analysed were the youngest mature leaves, which is what they usually ask for.

I'll put Sheri's results with the normal range for hybrids:

In %
N 4.04 (2.33 - 3.69)
P 0.26 (0.27 - 0.42)
K 2.53 (2.26 - 2.94)
Mg 0.25 (0.13 - 0.34
Ca 1.55 (0.45 - 1.59)
S 0.20 (0.15 - 0.23)
In ppm:
B 29 (17-35)
Zn 54 (21-41)
Mn 84 (49-494)
Fe 175 (41-137)
Cu 5 (3-8)

I guess they didn't do sodium, molybdenum or aluminum?

The iron looks high for the hybrid ranges (from the Milorganite?), but separate "normals" for Hemerocallis fulva give 167 ppm for iron)

Honestly I know I wrote a reply to this and now I don't know where it went. Off into the ether somewhere ☄️

In reply to Sue @sooby no they did not analyze those 3.

So of what we have, the zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe) are a little high although not "very high" like the soil. And the iron (Fe) is not high if Hemerocallis fulva is included in the normal range, which I would say it should be. That only leaves zinc (Zn) a little on the high side - 30% above the high.

The copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) are both low even though they were "very high" in the soil test.

The magnesium (Mg) that was shown as "deficient" against the standard reference plant is right in the middle of normal for the daylilies.

The potassium (K), sulfur (S) and boron (B) that looked to be at starvation levels in the soil didn't keep the daylily leaves from getting enough.

If we adjusted the plant levels graph for all this, all we would have left is a little too much zinc (Zn). Despite a soil test that looked like a roller coaster between too much and too little. That's what makes this so puzzling.

Even though the graph of the plant nutrient levels as measured would not turn any heads, the problems with Sheri's daylilies would!

As she's shown, this is how a clump of California Sunshine looked this summer:



And this is how it looked 6 years ago before the problems started:



So, while the plant tissue tests may be saying "there's no big problem here", the plant is saying "Help Me!!"

I'm working on that but admit it's a challenge. I'm planning to call the head of the analysis lab, who has been talking with Sheri, to see what ideas he may have from his experience. I'll ask whether he thinks aluminum, selenium, or molybdenum should be tested.

Open to hearing comments from anyone interested!

It's a good thing that, as Maurice @admmad and Sue @sooby and I think others suggested, Sheri was willing to go to the work and expense of having both tested 👍🏻 because a soil test alone would definitely have been misleading.

Pat

Short partial update:

I spoke with an agronomist at the lab which did Sheri's soil tests. She said emphatically that although they are given as "high", the copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) levels in the soil are not at "toxic" or "dangerous" levels. Coupled with the fact they are not high in the leaves, we should set aside any idea that the one year of sprays using the copper fungicide caused the short scape problem. It is apparently a coincidence that the problem showed up just after that.

So we have to look elsewhere. I have been trading messages with Sheri to get a better history of treatments to the bed (they've been minimal), the history of the soil, and trading ideas for what she might be willing and able to try considering her limits. She is not physically able to do a lot of digging to work in organic matter, for instance. So we may look at ways to add it from the top down with shallow mulches.

We've about settled on a fertilizer plan for this fall which will be very easy and simple to apply so it's not too demanding. It will correct the two most important deficiencies that are apparent so far - nitrogen (N) and potassium (K).

I am waiting for a little more information before deciding what we will do next year.

I may not be active this week because I am having company.