Today was not a great day for epiphytes. This isn’t because they weren’t out there, but just because we spent most of the day inside. Our main project was to interpret the results of our pitfall traps. After collecting the vials, we headed back to the classroom to assess the morphospecies found. Our hypotheses focused on whether species abundance and richness were different in the canopy versus the forest floor and whether or not canopy species were more attracted to a nitrogen source (our urine).

The first question was more straightforward than the second. We could clearly see that both abundance and richness were greater for the forest floor. However, teasing apart the question of nitrogen limitation in the canopy versus the forest floor proved to be much more complicated. In the end, we choose to represent the difference between the by creating data points by subtracting the amount of arthropods in the water from the urine (for canopy and ground). Upon discussing the report with Scott and Adrienne, we found many ways in which our work could be improved upon. Two of the most crucial changes we made was to use a proportion rather than a subtraction and to pool all samples we took (broadening our community). This refining process is both interesting and productive; many new research directions came from our discussion.

At the end of the day, we all went on a night hike. The difference in number of species we saw was really noticeable. As for epiphytes, I certainly saw them, but am becoming more and more convinced that this group is hard to pin down for any specific geographical location. So many of the factors of what species ends up where is tied to the specific characteristics of the niches of the Chiquibul forest. In the future, I would be interested took look into the literature for information on niche exploitation by epiphytes. I think it would greatly increase my comprehension of the epiphyte landscape.