How to care for String of Pearls
For a complete, in-depth growing guide covering everything from care basics to long-term maintenance, troubleshooting, and expert tips, visit our article.
Learn more →
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 14 - Jul 19
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
string of pearls indoor plant String of Pearls 'Senecio rowleyanus' 2 Gal. / Black / Without PotThe String of Pearls, also known as Senecio rowleyanus, is a unique trailing succulent from the daisy family, admired for its distinctive cascading growth habit. This plant is also commonly called string of beads, string of peas, and rosary vine. The String of Pearls gets its name from its distinctive, long, trailing stems that are adorned with small, spherical leaves that resemble pearls. Each of these bead like leaves features a unique translucent
The String of Pearls, also known as Senecio rowleyanus, is a unique trailing succulent from the daisy family, admired for its distinctive cascading growth habit. This plant is also commonly called string of beads, string of peas, and rosary vine.
The String of Pearls gets its name from its distinctive, long, trailing stems that are adorned with small, spherical leaves that resemble pearls. Each of these bead-like leaves features a unique translucent “window”, a thin, clear strip that allows light to pass into the leaf for photosynthesis. These little green pearls hang delicately from the stems, creating a beautiful cascading effect. In its natural habitat, the stems trail along the ground, rooting where they come into contact, and form dense mats.
Native to South Africa, this charming string of pearls houseplant features trailing stems with pea-like or tiny melon-shaped leaves spilling over planters and hanging baskets, much like its closely related plant string of rubiesGo to othonna capensis ruby necklace.
Your String of Pearls typically grows up to 2 feet long rather than tall, as it is a naturally trailing and hanging plant.
The moderately fast-growing nature of this string of pearls plant makes it a great choice for a variety of landscapes.
The flowers of the string of pearls bloom during the spring and summer months, with white flowers along the stalk and bright yellow anthers. However, it's important to note that String of Pearls plants are primarily grown for their unique bead-like foliage rather than their flowers. Nonetheless, if your string of pearl plants does flower, it's definitely a treat to behold!
This string of pearls also comes in another lovely variety, a variegated string of pearlsGo to senecio rowleyanus string of pearls variegated, with its white-creamy foliage.
When and How to Water Your String of Pearls Plant
String of Pearls is a drought-tolerant succulent that thrives with minimal watering. To keep your plant healthy, allow the soil to dry out between waterings, and only water when the top inch of soil feels dry. The spring of pearls plant prefers watering every 10-14 days in the growing season, and every 3-4 weeks in the dormant season.
During the spring and summer growing season, water every 10–14 days on average. As the plant actively grows, it may require slightly more frequent watering, especially in warm or bright environments.
In fall and winter, reduce watering to about once every 3–4 weeks. Since the plant enters a semi-dormant phase, it uses less moisture and is more vulnerable to overwatering.
Too much water can quickly kill a String of Pearls plant, so it’s always safer to underwater than to overwater. Using terracotta or clay pots helps absorb excess moisture and keeps roots healthier by preventing soggy soil conditions.
Light Requirements - Where to Place Your String of Pearls
When grown indoors, place it near a window that receives bright indirect sunlight for at least 4-6 hours a day. South-facing or west-facing windows are usually the best choices. You can also use artificial grow lights to provide the necessary light if natural sunlight is limited.
When growing outdoors, your low-maintenance string of pearls prefers full sun to partial shade to thrive. Four hours of direct morning or evening sun can also be beneficial for your Senecio rowleyanus, but be careful not to expose it to intense, direct sunlight for extended periods, as it can scorch the leaves of your String of Pearls succulent.
Keep an eye on your string of pearl succulents for any signs of light stress. If the leaves start to turn yellow or brown, it could be a sign that the light is too intense. On the other hand, if the leaves become elongated and spaced out, it might indicate that your pearl succulent is not receiving enough light.
Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs
Use a well-drained soil for your Senecio rowleyanus, and NPK fertilizer (5-10-5) once a year in spring for healthy growth. Planet Desert has got your back with our specialized succulent potting mix or cactus soil mix that includes 5 natural substrates with organic mycorrhizae, perfect for promoting shallow root systems and happy String of Pearls succulents.
Apply the NPK fertilizer once a year in the spring of about 5-10-5 ratio, to provide a gentle boost of nutrients. However, during the cooler months or when your Senecio rowleyanus is in a dormant phase, it's best to avoid fertilizing altogether.
If you notice any signs of fertilizer burn, such as leaf discoloration or wilting, flush the soil with water to remove any excess nutrients.
Hardiness Zone & More
In the United States, this is mostly an indoor plant, but if you live in southern Florida or Hawaii, then you can cultivate it outdoors in USDA zones 9-12.
When it comes to humidity, the String of Pearls is adapted to low-humidity environments.
It can tolerate average indoor humidity levels, but it's important to avoid excessive moisture around the plant.
Ensure good air circulation and avoid placing your String of Pearls in areas prone to high humidity, such as bathrooms or kitchens.
Indoor Growing String of Pearls Plant Requirements
If you are growing your String of Pearls indoors, ideally, keep your plant in a warm environment. In general, it prefers average room temperatures between 60°F and 85°F, which helps it stay healthy and active. Its trailing growth habit makes it an excellent houseplant for hanging baskets, shelves, and high planters, where its cascading stems can be fully displayed and appreciated.
Wildlife - String of Pearls Flowers Attracts the Following Friendly Pollinators
When in bloom, String of Pearls produces small, delicate white flowers that can attract friendly pollinators such as bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other beneficial insects in outdoor or greenhouse settings. These subtle blooms add ecological value while enhancing the plant’s ornamental charm.
Butterflies
Bees
Hummingbirds
Lady Bugs
Multi Pollinators
Other Birds
According to the ASPCA, String of Pearls is mildly toxic to cats, dogs, and horses if ingested in large amounts. So, if you have furry friends at home, it's best to keep your string of pearls out of their reach or opt for pet-friendly alternatives.
How to Propagate Your String of Pearls Plant
For propagating a string of pearls Senecio rowleyanus, simply snip off a healthy stem or string of pearls plant seed (from leaf tips) and place it in well-draining soil. After a few weeks, you should start to see roots forming, indicating successful propagation by stem cuttings.
Key highlights
- String of Pearls is one of the best trailing houseplants, featuring long cascading strands that look beautiful in hanging baskets and shelves.
- This plant is highly drought-tolerant, storing water in its round leaves and requiring minimal watering.
- String of Pearls remains compact and space-efficient, making it ideal for small homes, desks, and modern interiors.
- The plant can produce delicate, fragrant white flowers under the right growing conditions, adding subtle ornamental value.
Final Thoughts
Overall, the String of Pearls plant is a unique and eye-catching succulent that is loved for its trailing stems adorned with small, bead-like leaves resembling pearls. It's a popular choice for indoor gardens and hanging baskets, adding a touch of whimsy and elegance to any space. With its distinct appearance and low-maintenance nature, the String of Pearls hanging plant is a delightful addition to any plant lover's collection!
Don't miss out on this opportunity to add something truly exceptional to your garden or in hanging baskets. Order your very own Senecio Rowleyanus string of pearls today!
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.3 ★★★★★
Based on 1654 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Enlightening!
Format: Paperback
A history of Monroe's discoveries and seminars
I took his seminars in the 1993-4 periods
Excellent beyond my expectations
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 3, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Excellent trilogy. This is book 2
Format: Paperback
Bob Monroe is an OG OBE G. Love this trilogy. If you can read, read this
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Great (excellent) details for the date written
Format: Paperback
NOTE: I toned this version down in 2021 – I was in a bad place when I wrote the original and there were some hostile and entirely inaccurate personal remarks in it.
A few tables/charts with a wealth of information have tiny text but most of this was easy enough to read. The photos are poorly produced (at least in the paperback version I reviewed), which is sad given they would be so handy otherwise.
This is a classic post-war treatise on the weapons used for ground warfare during World War II by the U.S. Army and as such the Marines. It was first published around 1947 when the war was fresh and doubtlessly numerous technical details were still classified. It was written by a man intimately involved in many design projects. The coverage pretty much explains the breadth.
Examples of use are included for some weapons and detailed tables of data for many. He explains references to the "long primer" for the 76-mm gun and the 81-mm mortar T1 extension tube. I am happy to have bought it for that and numerous other details.
One thing I missed when I first wrote the original rambling, a bit over the top review back in September 2015 was that the 57mm M1 antitank gun is not mentioned even though it was a key component of Infantry weaponry in 1944-45, sometimes maligned but often quite effective when carefully used as noted in many, many detailed accounts. Perhaps it was skipped because it was a revision of the British 6 pounder and not designed by Barnes men? Yet, it is an example of the issues caused by the pre war budget minders forcing the Army into desperate choices as explained later – and the using arms who decided to adopt it almost at the last minute, late in 1943. Until a weapon is adopted by the Army ammunition cannot be developed – it costs too much money and time to do so.
Most of the book is positive and ignores failures, posed from the viewpoint of a proud designer not an actual user. Yet those failures illustrate the issues Ordnance had to deal with during the war. The U.S. invented the bazooka as the 2.36-inch model in 1942 yet the Germans fielded the more powerful 8.8-cm (88mm) model in 1944; and the U.S. did not get the 3.5-inch (90mm) into production-ready state until the war was ended. This was caused by offloading development onto people who went out for a “super rocket launcher” that had no place in the war. All too often, some excited designers did indeed get ahead of themselves when it came to what worked but was a bit too much (and ultimately impractical for the Army at the time). The inability to develop hollow-charge (HEAT) ammo for cannon and howitzers to reach its minimum potential (twice the caliber in penetration or better) was common for all countries including the U.S. The 105mm howitzer round was pretty good and while disparaged by all and sundry even the 75mm howitzer’s shell could (and did) take out medium armor.
Barnes refers to the M3 and M5 light tank as "excellent" when the tanker's epithet would have been "tin plated coffin with a pea-shooter". Here we have an issue with comparing numbers such as armor thickness and penetration power of guns to facts; it is common to think they were butchered such as in Africa when in fact they fought well enough, flaws and all. But they were not the weapons the tankers wanted (nor deserved), and thus tanker’s complaints were valid. And, yes, they were not seen as a prime resource for fighting German tanks and hence reverted to recon and infantry support roles. Where they continued to meet and destroy German armor (but also be destroyed). Any German field commander would have loved to have a battalion of M5s on hand chasing down and chewing up U.S. troops; the contribution of the men in the light tanks in Europe in 1944 and 1945 is all too often belittled by the “number nerds” who toss the light tanks off as useless. They were anything but useless.
Why were the M10, M18, and M36 designed as “Gun Motor Carriages” and not tanks? Because they were developed for the tank destroyer forces and the very bigoted officers who held the most sway on development wanted them to be nothing but “motorized antitank guns”. If they had been designed as tanks that would have invalidated Tank Destroyer Doctrine immediately. And yet, in the end, the men doing the fighting needed and wanted tanks, so they used them as tanks as much as they could, despite the open roof and lack of internal machine guns. It is claimed the gun motor carriages were cheaper than tanks (a specious argument given price varied by manufacturer and ultimately depended more on quantities produced not some arbitrary raw number) but to produce the gun motor carriages for a specialist role that was neither tank nor artillery (albeit they were used for both) was a costly thing to do.
The failure to develop a better light tank in time is not mentioned even though the T7 light tank with a 57-mm gun was ready in mid-1942 and could have been in the field around 1943 (the Armored Forces botched that one). The M24 was a nice tank but too late simply because development came too late because development had been stunted badly by congress and it’s miserly pre-1941 budget.
There are errors: The design of the M24 began in 1943, not 1945. The 76-mm gun could hardly penetrate the "...heaviest German tank armor." But it could penetrate a lot of armor and the myth that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers is one of those fantasies of the war pursued by people who are glorifying the war not understanding it (most German armor was medium or lighter), let alone the myth that they were always met head-on is ridiculous. The 90-mm gun was not optimized for anti-tank use and hence had the same issues with dealing with the frontal armor of the Panther (though it could handle the Tiger) and yet was better at that than many other guns. The tendency to adapt anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank guns was common and is where Germany got its 88s and the 128mm. The U.S. found it did not need a lot of 90mms (the homeland was not threatened and what it produced was enough for its needs); there was never the demand for a higher altitude version and hence nothing like the 8.8cm FLAK 41 was developed which led to the 8.8cm Kwk43 and Pak43s; yet Ordnance built their own versions of hot 90mm for tank use.
I missed the boat in my original review failing to detail how the Army’s main issue was the budget provided by Congress and politicians from 1920 through 1940. They starved the Army; the U.S. was peaceful and they had no interest in making it a military country and as such kept the Army small (and starved the air forces and Navy as well but not as badly). This crippled development; while the Soviets started building a modern Army in 1930 complete with investment in tank forces and tank arsenals; the Germans in 1934 or so; and British in 1934 or so; the U.S. politicians did not begin serious spending on the Army until 1941. Before then, the budget was all about “beans, bullets, and bayonets” and of course bodes to wield them. The Army had to struggle with what it had and put to field what was practical not what was best. Thus, for example, the recoilless rifles (used by the Germans in 1940) did not arrive in U.S. use until 1945. And yet a U.S. officer bult the first recoilless rifle to be used way back around 1916.
Indeed, a brief little discussion on how the U.S. produced what it did based on budget would have opened many eyes. The Soviets produced so many thousand T34s for example, more than the U.S. – and in the U.S. the budget people were always saying, “You don’t need any more, stop building them!” As mentioned, the number of 90mm AA guns the U.S. produced was not based on manufacturing capacity but because they didn’t need more.
Thus - there is a lot of information and many details many people will never have heard before. There are also many missing details concerning the Ordnance Department struggles to get things done in a very brief time frame thanks to how Congress had refused to let them do anything earlier. Dig into that deeper and you might find it nauseating the way people played games that hindered the U.S. Army in its job of helping beat the Germans. And sometimes couldn't put 2 and 2 together to get the right answer. But, they were human after all, and people do make mistakes.
In my original review I argued that “If you want a politics free book you will not get it in this once, not unless you shut your eyes and remain ignorant . . .” but that is wrong. If this was a political book, Barnes might have ripped the budget mongers of the 1920s and 1930s a new sphincter for leaving the Army (and U.S. military as a whole) in such a bad situation as they did when war broke out. But, Barnes had more class than I do.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 19, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Good content, very small print and photos
Format: Paperback
Get a magnifying glass… the print is tiny. They must have made this book to be a large hard cover because both the print and the photos are so small in paperback. Content looks decent. It’s a gift for my grandson who will probably spend more time with the photos than the reading anyway and his eyesight is better than mine. :D
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 16, 2025
★★★★★ 4
Printing not up to standards.
Format: Paperback
Printing and pics not up to par.I gifted this book to a coworker and he was not as picky as I.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2020