Tag Archives: Epiphyte

Uncategorized

Day 8

Leave a comment

As per usual, something went wrong with the van. Our original plan for the day was to leave Las Cuevas early in the morning in order to make it to ATM cave for a swim and exploration. Then, we were going to drive across Belize to stay at the zoo. This is not how our day went at all.

Most of the morning was spent sitting on the porch, waiting for our van to show up. This went on for several hours. Rather than spend all our time waiting, we got the opportunity to tour other parts of the Las Cuevas research station and learn about their ongoing projects.

When our van finally arrived, we all climbed gratefully into its semi-air-conditioned space. Unfortunately, our massive time delay prevented us from being able to visit the ATM cave.

However, we did end up going on the night tour of the Belize zoo. Not only did we get to see two of the eighteen jaguars that they have, but we got to see margays, ocelots (so noisy), two types of owls (Rice!), a tapir, and three kinds of snakes.

Overall, I remain optimistic about the rest of the trip. Each thing that goes wrong does not faze our group at all. The new challenges that the reef will pose to us will be just new bonding experiences for us.

 

Uncategorized

Day 6

Leave a comment

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.

Uncategorized

Day 4

Leave a comment

The tiredness continues. Today’s two tasks were to test our four hypotheses related to Cecropia herbivory defense and explore ant nests of different ages.

The Cecropia tree is normally in symbiosis with several species of ant. Their function is to be a defense mechanism against any threat to the integrity of the tree. This mostly means herbivory from various types of organism. However, there is a period when the tree is young prior to the colonization event of the ant population. We explored different ways in which the tree could potentially protect itself in this vulnerable period. After discussing the issue as a group for a while, covering many different possible solutions, we settled on four distinct hypotheses. Briefly, they focused on mimicry, chemical defense, leaf quality, and the predator/herbivore satiation hypothesis.

In long form these were our ideas. Maybe the young Cecropia trees are in some way similar to another species that has it’s own process for herbivory deterrence. Through mimicry, young Cecropia may benefit from the association made by herbivores. Secondly, there could be a chemical defense mechanism that is then replaced by the ants later in life. Thirdly, leaves on juveniles could be of poorer quality so as to deter herbivores, who would be better off selecting other species. Lastly (and the hypothesis I worked on), was herbivore satiation hypothesis. Under this assumption, we would expect to see high numbers of seed and juveniles, with the high number of individuals “flooding the market” and ensuring both sufficient herbivory and a proportion of individuals surviving into maturity (and therefore protection via ants).

After collecting and analyzing our data, we moved on to the ant colony structure. Scott showed us the different stages of nest. We spent the rest of the day looking for the fungus chamber and evading the (amazingly strong) bites of soldier ants.

Tomorrow, we go caving. I’m excited, as I have never done anything of the sort before.