THE MEL PROJECT

[Ryceman3]

I have gone through all my melaleuca seedlings and wired a few, cut back others and just generally given them a bit of attention that I hope will aid in them becoming better bonsai in the future. The M. Rhaphiophylla and M. Stypheliodes in particular are pretty intent on growing tall and straight so they need to be coaxed in other directions. Below is a sample of each (about average sizes) as a reference of development. Nothing for scale but the black pots are 85mm tall as a guide to size.

MelProj_1020_.jpg

MelProj_1020_2.jpg

MelProj_1020_3.jpg

MelProj_1020_4.jpg

MelProj_1020_5.jpg

MelProj_1020_6.jpg

MelProj_1020_7.jpg

MelProj_1020_8.jpg

MelProj_1020_9.jpg

[terryb]

Which is your favourite so far?

[Ryceman3]

Which is your favourite so far?

Oooooh terryb, contraversial! That's like asking which kid is your favourite ...
I would answer like this, and it is preliminary given they were all seeds this time last year ...

I like M.Styph and M.Rhaph as really robust growers. Both are noticably more advanced in terms of trunk girth and like to throw out branching. M.Rhaph I think will have some fantastic white papery bark, I can already see it developing on a few... but M.Styph isn't far off either.

I like M.Eric and M.Cutic for the foliage size and reasonable growth. They aren't as thick or developed as the two above but nothing really to complain about and the fine/small leaf is great. They are quite bendy too.

I like M.Decus for it's rapid growth. I would want to see some leaf size reduction as it develops but that isn't/shouldn't be priority right now. I think the same might be said of M.Neso but I need to get these (and the M.Lanc) potted up individually to give them some room.

M.Ellip was definitely at the bottom, but it is picking up now the weather is warming so I will reserve judgement... it's a slow burn! Definitely interesting leaf colour/shape so we'll see.

Hope that helps!

[KIRKY]

So you like all of them....... for their individuality
Cheers
Kirky

[Ryceman3]

Not a lot of time to get stuff done on trees lately, but I did manage to have a look at some of these little natives yesterday. The Stypheliodes had a hair cut (both on top and the roots out the bottom). This one is about average, somewhere near 10 - 12mm base I think. 14 months ago it was a microscopic seed, nature is incredible. I think repotting into some slightly bigger pots would escalate growth now, I'll try and get some done in the next month or so to really give them a chance to fatten over Autumn. The other mels also need a bit of attention, when I get to it I'll post their progress.

Mel Styph_01.jpg

Mel Styph_02.jpg

[Rolf]

Not a lot of time to get stuff done on trees lately, but I did manage to have a look at some of these little natives yesterday. The Stypheliodes had a hair cut (both on top and the roots out the bottom). This one is about average, somewhere near 10 - 12mm base I think. 14 months ago it was a microscopic seed, nature is incredible. I think repotting into some slightly bigger pots would escalate growth now, I'll try and get some done in the next month or so to really give them a chance to fatten over Autumn. The other mels also need a bit of attention, when I get to it I'll post their progress.


Hi Ryceman,

I like these melaleuca styphelioides, they develop a beautiful nebari for a small tree!!!

m.styphelioides.jpg

m.styphelioides_close up.jpg

Cheers
Rolf

[Ryceman3]

I like these melaleuca styphelioides, they develop a beautiful nebari for a small tree!!!

... and they do it at a pretty decent rate!
Thanks for the pic.

[Ryceman3]

Here is an update on some work I did this morning on the M.Rhaphiophylla...
Decent development I think. They are upgrading one pot size to hopefully continue on their merry way.

5A790A1D-2EE5-40D7-9886-0BEFDA1E6859.jpeg

C26C1522-D249-4CA8-9D8E-B223C3B03E21.jpeg

B9170233-9208-4E9E-921F-2E366DBF384B.jpeg

4187E525-F6C0-448D-9633-9D733A98B45D.jpeg

I’ve put them into a standard Cactus Mix to see how that goes. Possibly a bit risky given I’ve had good growth in a different mix, but my thinking is they’ll need repotting again in late spring and as the weather starts to cool down a bit I can get them out of the water trays. They suck incredible amounts of water, and the Cactus Mix will hold a bit more I reckon which will help when they are free from the trays. I’ll be watching them closely.

[KIRKY]

They are all coming along nicely R3. But.......
What makes you think the Cactus mix will hold more? When Cactuses like to be on the dry side as the roots rot easily.
I pot everything that likes to be on the drier side into Cactus mix. Melaleuca rhaphiophylla, commonly known as swamp paperbark, I would think SWAMP in the name would indicate thirsty
Just my thought.
Cheers
Kirky

[Ryceman3]

They are all coming along nicely R3. But.......
What makes you think the Cactus mix will hold more? When Cactuses like to be on the dry side as the roots rot easily.
I pot everything that likes to be on the drier side into Cactus mix. Melaleuca rhaphiophylla, commonly known as swamp paperbark, I would think SWAMP in the name would indicate thirsty
Just my thought.
Cheers
Kirky

Hey Kirky,
The mix that I had them in is my regular mix (primarily used on pines and is definitively drier than Cactus mix) with a bit of Cactus mix added. I moved to full cactus mix not so much because of the M.Rhaphiophylla, or the M.Stypheliodes. These love the water (as I think does M.Cuticularis but I haven't looked at roots for a bit - just going on the foliar growth) and are thriving in the trays, but I feel like some of the others are not performing as well as they could, and that was confirmed this afternoon when I repotted a few to have a look under the soil.
As you can see from the photos below, the root growth on the M. Decussata was well under the volume/health of the others

Mel Repots_1.jpg

There was similar root development on this other one too (no shot of it unfortunately, but you can see the top growth is not as strong)

Mel Repots_2.jpg

I feel like they might do better in a wetter mix (which I think the Cactus mix can provide) without sitting in water.

As for the M.Stypheliodes and M. Rhaphiophylla, I think they'll be fine in 100% cactus mix and sitting in water ... because they can't seem to get enough water. So these will stay on trays until I think that it's not required. As for M.Cuticularis ... I'll base my decision on trays or not depending on the roots when I get to them. Here's a shot of M. Stypheliodes roots from this afternoon ... super good! Because these are young and prolific growers, I think the need to repot will occur long before the Cactus mix breaks down too much. What happens down the track is anybody's guess.

Mel Repots_3.jpg

I'm keen to not be "nuancing" mixes too much. I want to keep it simple. One mix for natives, one for the rest with any luck.

Anyway, that's it for today ... I'll update when I have more info on the others I repot.

[KIRKY]

Well that makes sense, if your current mix is dryer than the Cactus mix. I find the Mels all pretty thirsty.
Cheers
Kirky

[Ryceman3]

Last lot that I plan on repotting from these seedlings, the M. Cuticularis ... here's an example of an average size one.

Mel Cutic_1.jpg

Mel Cutic_2.jpg

I'd say this is somewhere in the middle in terms of development when compared to the other species I repotted. I won't be touching the M.Elliptica or M.Nesophila as there is nothing to suggest they need to be worked on. Only a few roots out the bottom of the pots and not a heap of growth on top so they can continue to sort themselves out for a bit.
I still haven't done anything with the M. Lanceolata - I haven't really had the time (or space more fundamentally) to pot them up individually so they are still as they were 12 months or more ago. I think in terms of monitoring development, I haven't given them the best chance as they are just in a holding pattern so it's not fair to compare them with the others.
That will probably end the updates on these for a while, it's time for them all to g-r-o-w...!

[terryb]

R3, your M.decussata is definitely not that species. M decussata should have decussate leaves which means they should be opposite, this one is alternate. The leaves are also too wide. I think you got a bad id there, oh wait, that was me The key for Melaleuca is confusing in places and I haven't found good images that explain some of the morphology. More required

[Ryceman3]

R3, your M.decussata is definitely not that species. M decussata should have decussate leaves which means they should be opposite, this one is alternate. The leaves are also too wide. I think you got a bad id there, oh wait, that was me The key for Melaleuca is confusing in places and I haven't found good images that explain some of the morphology. More required

Ha! You are absolutely right. I never really thought about if/how these related to their name, just went with the ID and it never occurred to me to check.
It's all good though, whatever !
I was actually comparing them with the M. Nesophila I have the other day and thought the leaf and growth habit was very similar ... maybe there might be something in that, I'll have another look. Thanks for the heads up, these mels are a tricky business!

[terryb]

I think that M. nesophila is probably a better ID. I went to check the source plant twice around flowering time to see if I could get a flower for identification; was too early the first time and too late the second, so unfortunately will need to wait until next Jan.

Another question if I may. Are you reducing the tops as part of your repotting/root work?