The plant that drinks meat

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

One of the features of Rock Ridge that really appealed to me from our first visit was the small bog that sat just offshore in Rock Lake. Bogs are intriguing habitats to me, perhaps because their unique conditions make them such a rare habitat type, full of interesting and different species found nowhere else in the region. Perhaps also part of it is that they are often very difficult to poke around in, unless one happens to visit a conservation area or such where they’ve built a boardwalk through it. The surface looks deceptively solid, but the thick bed of spongy peat and sphagnum moss is ill-suited for supporting 100-odd pounds of human pressure placed on a very small amount of surface area. Really, without a boardwalk, the only easy way to visit a bog is by canoe or kayak, and even then, you’re mostly limited to circling the perimeter.

The access to Rock Ridge is by canoe, but to reach the actual site by water would involve portaging the boat across a short rapids. This ends up being more work than it’s worth, and by the time you’ve unpacked the boat, carried it around, packed it up again, and then paddled over to the shore by the site, you could have reached the same spot by foot and just have docked the canoe back at the rapids, which is what we’ve been doing. This means we don’t pass the bog by water, as I’d hoped, so I hadn’t had a chance to explore more closely.

A couple of visits ago, however, during a slow period one morning, I clambered down the rocks to the water’s edge and scanned the edge of the bog with my binoculars. I was delighted to spot a couple of pitcher plants growing among the vegetation. Their red flowers projected above the grasses and sedges and caught my eye, but naturally I hadn’t thought to bring my telephoto lens down with me, and the wide-angle just didn’t have the reach for much of a photo. Last visit I took my telephoto down to try for a better photo, and while I got some passable shots, I was only so-so about them. We were in the middle of the move and internet downtime, so I didn’t have a chance to post them in Monday Miscellany.

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

It turned out to be just as well, as our most recent visit was incredibly slow for birds, and Dan made the suggestion that he could hold the fort for an hour or so if I wanted to walk back and portage the boat over so I could putter around the bog a bit (he also asked me to get photos and GPS coordinates for a phoebe nest that will likely appear over at his blog, Frontenac Birds, perhaps his ulterior motive for letting me skip out for a couple of rounds). It didn’t take much to convince me. Good thing the canoe doesn’t weigh too much.

The peat had built up under the water surface enough that I had some difficulty getting close enough to most of the bog for decent shots, but there was one spot where I had good access and I could pull up right next to the pitcher plant. That one plant got the works as a result.

The pitcher plants we have here are Sarracenia purpurea. Because it’s the only species of pitcher plant to occur in Canada – the only one in the northeastern states, too – it’s often just called “pitcher plant”, but there are between 8 and 11 species (depending on who you ask) of Sarracenia in North America. The full common name for this one is Purple Pitcher Plant (a nice bit of alliteration there), taken from the species name purpurea, which means purple. The rest of the species are all restricted to the warmer climate of southeastern US.

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

Some of the leaves are indeed purplish, but many are green with blood-red veins. The leaves are modified to form enclosed tubes, the feature that gives pitcher plants their names. Each is topped with a broad “hood”, well-developed in some species although somewhat reduced in the Purple, which functions both to keep out rain (which would collect and flood the tube, allowing insects to escape) as well as to guide unwitting insects to the trap. The leaves all grow from a fleshy rhizome, and plants can be propagated simply by dividing the root.

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

Although some photosynthesis does take place to provide the plant with sugars, nearly all of its nutrients have to come from the prey it captures. The habitats that pitcher plants usually inhabit tend to be very acidic and nutrient-poor, with nutrients either leached away from the substrate the plant grows on by moving water, or the strong acidity of the environment severely hampering their uptake by the plant. Clearly the need for additional nutrients was the driving force behind the evolution of this special adaptation, though there is some debate about the process by which it happened. One theory suggests that the early ancestors of today’s pitcher plants simply had curled leaves, and eventually, through evolutionary time, the edges fused to become the tubes we see now.

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

I checked a number of the pitchers to see if any had prey. A few had small gnats or other unidentifiable insects, but inside one was this unlucky firefly, still alive. Pitcher plants use multiple cues to draw potential prey in. The first is visual, the combination of colour and shape. They also produce a nectar just under the inside lip of the tube, to tempt insects to lean in. And thirdly, they give off a distinct scent, although I didn’t try sniffing them.

The inner wall of the tube is slippery, and while many visitors come and go without incident, an insect that leans in too far to get the nectar will slip into the cup. At least one species, S. flava, actually produces a compound in its nectar that acts as a narcotic to insects, affecting their balance. In the case of the Purple Pitcher Plant, the tube is filled with a watery liquid, but not all pitcher plants have that. The inner surface of the tube is lined with downward-facing hairs that make it extremely difficult for the insect to climb back out, and some species have grooves in their walls that further increase the difficulty. Eventually, the bug drowns.

The lower half of the tube is lined with glands that secrete digestive enzymes that start work on breaking down the prey. When a leaf tube is young it will primarily use these enzymes for digestion. As it gets older, into its second year, however, bacteria and tiny organisms in the water increasingly become more important in that function. Some pitchers are also home to particular species of mosquito (Wyeomyia smithii) and midge (Metriocnemus knabi) larvae that are unaffected by the digestive enzymes. These larvae do the job of breaking down the larger prey items, and the pitcher absorbs the nutrients from their droppings. In return, the larvae get protection and an oxygen-rich environment (the oxygen being released into the liquid as a result of the plant’s photosynthesis).

Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea

The flowers of the plant are just as unique as their method of securing nutrients. They nod from a tall stem, which hopefully keeps potential pollinators above any risk of falling in. The flowers themselves are formed of two cup-shaped parts – the red petals that curve down from above, and the green style that curves up from below. The style is part of the female reproductive organ, which in the average plant is long and narrow with the receptive stigma, what the pollen stick to, on one end and the ovary at the other. In the case of pitcher plants, the style is five-parted but fused together into one large surface, like an inverted umbrella. Where each of the umbrella’s “spokes” would reach the edge and form a point there is a stigma. The anthers, which produce the pollen, hang inside the central green tube. The umbrella-shaped style helps to catch pollen that may fall from these.

Although it’s not demonstrated well in this photo, ordinarily the five red petals hang down in the gaps between the five pointed stigmas, preventing bees and other pollinators from entering there. The bees have to go in over the stigma, and in doing so brush on any pollen they may have picked up at the last flower they visited. They tromp through the fallen pollen on the umbrella surface, and up into the centre tube. When they turn around to leave, they can push the red petal out of the way and leave by the gap between the stigmas, easier than climbing over the stigma again. This way the plant avoids having the bees fertilize their stigmas with their own pollen, but also ensures that the bees have to pass by the stigmas on their way in.

It takes five months for the seeds to mature. The seed pods split open, allowing the seeds to be dispersed. The seeds are hydrophobic, meaning they float on the surface of the water, allowing them to easily be dispersed to new sites on water currents. I suspect they probably travel between lakes on the feet and feathers of ducks, too.

The Purple Pitcher Plant has been designated the official flower of Newfoundland and Labrador – its ability to persevere and thrive in harsh conditions a symbol for the province’s adaptable peoples.

Up and running for real this time

Sunrise over Big Clear Lake

This morning, Dan and I rolled out of bed at 3:30am to prepare for a visit to Rock Ridge. This was our fifth of seven total visits we’ll be making to the site. There is very little reward to getting up well before the crack of dawn, but watching the sun rise on clear mornings happens to be one. The moon this morning was the tiniest sliver of a crescent, beautiful in its daintiness, hanging just over the horizon as the sun’s colours began to wash the sky’s lower edge. Sadly, the moon at any stage is very difficult to adequately capture with a camera.

We had a quiet and relatively uneventful morning. I collected some photos for a few posts for this week. The real story, however, was after we arrived home again. Shortly after we’d parked the car, as we were gathering our stuff from the back of it, the white van of the internet technician rolled up the drive, here to install our internet connection! A couple hours and a couple of sections of TV tower later, and we have liftoff! I have lots to catch up on over the next couple of days, but now that we have internet in the comfort of our own home, after three weeks of disconnectedness (can you tell I’m excited?), I should be able to get back to a regular schedule of posting (good thing, too, I’ve got a backlog of photos piling up). I had wanted to get something substantial up this evening, but ended up using the time to tackle other tasks I’d been neglecting during our downtime. Tomorrow, more weird plants (in what looks like it might be the week’s theme, spinning off from this post last week).

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I hear a bed calling my name. The bed and I, we haven’t seen each other for over 20 hours; it’s going to be a wonderful reunion.

A selection of summer fungi

Yellow Nolanea - Nolanea murraii

Fall is the time when the greatest diversity of fungus (mushrooms) is usually seen, with the boldest colours and most interesting, eye-catching shapes. However, summer can be pretty good, too. We’re just starting to see quite a number of speciies appearing in the woods around our research sites, and I’ve been collecting photos for sharing here. There are quite a number of nondescript species in the woods, as well, but these are some of the more interesting ones I’ve come across recently.

The first one is Yellow Nolanea, Nolanea murraii. We found these in the deciduous woods at Rock Ridge as we were hiking out one day. Their yellow colour caught my eye at first, but it was the intriguing peaked conical caps that grabbed my interest. It’s a fairly common and widespread species, also sometimes called Yellow Unicorn Entoloma. Entoloma is an alternative genus – I gather that taxonomy for this group of mushrooms is still being sorted out.

Yellow Waxcap - Hygrocybe flavescens

Another yellow one, this is Yellow Waxcap, Hygrocybe flavescens… I think. You’d be surprised at how many bright yellow, small, flat-capped, gilled mushrooms there are. One of the characteristic features of waxcaps are, unsurprisingly, their shiny, waxy caps, and this one certainly has a shiny cap.

Gilled mushrooms such as this one are usually separated by the colour of the spore print they make. A spore print is when you take the cap of the mushroom off the stem and set it on a piece of paper for an hour or two. The spores fall out of the gills and onto the paper, leaving a print. Depending on the species, the print may be pinkish, brownish, or light or dark colours (usually variations on grayish). Yellow Waxcap is in the light-spored group, and has a whiteish spore print. Of course, I don’t really like to pluck the cap off mushrooms I find, particularly if there aren’t very many of them, so I’m content to call the species a “maybe” and leave it at that.

Conic Waxcap - Hygrocybe conica

I believe this is another member of the same genus, Conic Waxcap, Hygrocybe conica. The yellowish stems and shiny orange caps seem to match (Conic starts out red, but fades to orange as it ages). The downside of taking photos and trying to ID from them later is that often you don’t know to check for certain features. For instance, Conic Waxcap, when you bruise it, turns black. I didn’t think to try bruising it, so I don’t know if this mushroom would turn black or not.

Orange Bolete - Leccinum aurantiacum

This one was clearly a bolete. Boletes have solid undersides with many small pores from which they release their spores, rather than the gills of the first three mushrooms. Narrowing down the species of bolete is trickier. I think it’s Orange Bolete, Leccinum aurantiacum. The guide book specifies the spore print to be brownish, but again, I didn’t try doing that. It was the only one in the area that I noticed. The stalk is supposed to have red-brown or black dots, but the photo in the book doesn’t show dots, or at least nothing obvious.

Marasmius delectans

This dainty little species was growing in the path at Rock Ridge on our last visit, having popped up in the week and a half since we were previously there. There are a couple of genera that are characterized by small caps on delicate stalks. One is Mycena, and the other is Marasmius. This one is Marasmius delectans, I think (noticing a pattern with that word?). Most of the species have whiteish caps with darkish stalks. Many are told apart through variations in the shape and size of the cap, and can sometimes be subtle.

Earth Fan - Thelephora terrestris maybe and Marasmius androsaceus

This frilly brown fungus, resembling a spruce tree a bit in its structure, caught my eye as I was checking out a family of Field Sparrows foraging under some pine trees at Rock Ridge. I think it’s a species of Thelephora, possibly Thelephora terrestris, Earth Fan. My book suggests it should have a whiteish margin, but there are some photos online that don’t show that.

As I was editing the photo, I noticed that there were little Marasmius mushrooms growing alongside it that I’d completely missed when I was there in person, as caught up with the main fungus as I was. These ones seem to have a brownish centre to their cap and I think they may be M. androsaceus.

Golden Coral - Ramaria aurea

And finally, this fungus I discovered when I stepped off the path to photograph a group of Indian Pipe at Maplewood Bog a couple weeks ago. Appropriately, fungi that grow in branching formations like this are called coral fungi. I suspect this one is Golden Coral, Ramaria aurea. One of the notes in the guide is that the species has a thick, short, whitish stalk, which this one has. The fungi shown above all release their spores from either gills or pores on their undersides, but coral fungi are covered with a layer of spore-producing cells that are essentially their skin.

Whip-poor-wills in decline (from OFO News)

WPWI-pencil
Whip-poor-will chasing Horrid Zale, pencil, 2009.

I’m the lead editor for the Ontario Field Ornithologists’ newsletter OFO News. Our June issue was just published. When one of the articles we’d had lined up fell through a week before the deadline, I put this piece together to take its place. I did the drawing above as accompaniment.

I’m borrowing that article to post here because we’re still without internet at home, despite my jubilant announcement of earlier. The technician was out this morning to assess the materials needed to obtain a signal, and will return next Tuesday to actually do the installation. Next Tuesday is the 21st. We moved on the 1st; that’s three weeks of internet-less-ness. I’m pretty sure that’s the longest I’ve been without internet at home since it was “invented” back in the ’90s. I’m definitely feeling it…

———————————

Despite having spent the first 20 years of my life growing up in rural Ontario, it has only been this summer that I finally heard a Whip-poor-will in this province. Historically, they were once found throughout southern Ontario, but I am too young to have known those times. My first experience with this unique and secretive species was while working as a field ornithologist in Ohio one summer. Our surveys took us into regenerating clearcuts in the wee hours of the morning, and, in several plots, as we walked in from where we parked the vehicles we would be accompanied by the emphatic, persistent, lilting calls, echoing from the forest’s edge. For me, the song of the Whip-poor-will remains a sound I firmly associate with the Appalachian foothills.

These days, here in Ontario, they are primarily a bird of “cottage country”. More often heard than seen, their distinctive voices are wedded to the image of quiet mist rising off the water’s surface in the pre-dawn light. Their population strongholds are in the patchy landscape that defines the southern edge of the Canadian Shield, the Frontenac Arch, and the Bruce Peninsula. It is in these areas that the rock barrens, alvars, regenerating forests and treed savannahs are most abundant. South of the Shield appropriate habitat is sparse. If you want to find the species west of Toronto now, your best bets are to visit the patchwork of forest tracts surrounding Long Point, Rondeau, or Pinery Provincial Parks.

Their decline has been swift and dramatic. In the 20 years between the publication of the first Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and the second, the probability of observation for Whip-poor-wills has declined by a statistically significant, incredible 51%. From a total of 884 squares in the 1980s (24% of all squares with data), the species was detected in just 559 squares in the second (only 11% of squares with data).

Although anecdotal observations on the decline of the Whip-poor-will in Ontario are abundant among older birders and naturalists, the hard data to support these reports have been sparse. Because of the species’ crepuscular habits, they aren’t regularly picked up on the standard monitoring programs such as the Breeding Bird Survey. Neither are the regularly detected at migration monitoring stations such as Long Point Bird Observatory’s long-running program. The first report providing firm numbers illustrating their decline came with the publication of the second edition of the Atlas in 2008.

WPWI

In April of this year, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated the Whip-poor-will with the status Threatened throughout its range in Canada, and recommended that the species be considered for official SARA (Species At Risk Act) listing. Their assessment was partially based on the new data provided by the Atlas and other similar surveys.

It isn’t clear what has caused the staggering decline in numbers, although clearly habitat loss has played a large factor. This has been squeezing the population from both directions. In the south, increased agricultural use and urbanization of the landscape have eaten away at the natural habitat the Whip-poor-will requires. In the north, marginal farmland has been allowed to lapse and regenerate, and the open habitat the birds use for foraging has gradually been filling in.

Another factor may be declines in insect populations. Very little work has been done to track insect abundance, but anecdotal evidence(such as the slimy splats on car windshields) suggests that bugs may not be as numerous as they once were even a few decades ago. This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that some of the greatest declines in bird numbers are observed among the aerial insectivores, those that feed on the wing, including the swallows and goatsuckers. The reason for declines in insects are likewise unknown, but may be the result of habitat loss combined with increased use of pesticides.

WPWI1

In the United States, monitoring efforts to track populations of Whip-poor-will are being undertaken in a number of regions. One of the largest is the Northeast Nightjar Survey, originally initiated by New Hampshire Audubon in 2003 as the Whip-poor-will Project. A working group that included the US Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, non-governmental conservation organizations and academic institutions, was formed in 2005 and began completing surveys outside of New Hampshire as well. Its scope has continued to expand and the project now has routes from Maine to Maryland, and as far west as Wisconsin, monitoring all three nightjar species commonly found in this region.

In 2007, the Northeast Nightjar Survey partnered with Bird Studies Canada’s NatureCounts website to host and manage data, and provide an online interface for participants to submit observations. Formal surveys are not yet in place for Canadians wishing to participate. Currently, the only Whip-poor-will monitoring effort taking place in Canada is being run by Frontenac Bird Studies, a new initiative of the Migration Research Foundation intended to survey and monitor the breeding birds of the Frontenac Arch. This will be the first year of operations for their Project Whip-poor-will.

The pictures painted by these surveys aren’t likely to be very rosy, but they will help in determining the source of the problem, and devising solutions. Developing a better understanding of Whip-poor-wills, their distribution, habitat requirements, and local ecology is vital to the creation of successful long-term conservation initiatives directed toward protecting the species and reversing these declining population trends.

A mouse with wings

bats7

A couple of evenings ago, Raven was giving her alarmed something-strange bark, rather than her usual I’m-bored play bark, out at the front of the house. Usually when she does this there is actually something worth investigating (even though we don’t always find it), such as a turtle. That evening when I stepped outside, I could hear chittering coming from the rafters of the roof overhang above the front porch. Closer investigation revealed a small group of bats tucked up between the thick support beams and the side of the house.

bats6

I believe they’re Little Brown Bats, Myotis lucifugus. Little Browns are a very common species through Ontario as elsewhere, and are the most widespread and common of Canada’s species. They are often found roosting in attics or chimneys of houses, something that most other species don’t do, or do infrequently. Little Browns will give birth and raise their young in communal maternity roosts, which they will use year after year, often returning to the same one where they were born. My parents’ old house had one such roost in their attic, I think. Other night-time roosts may not be used as regularly, and indeed I think our Little Browns only stayed a couple of nights (perhaps they were put off by the flash of my camera).

bats1

When I stepped out to see what Raven was barking about, I found this mess all over the front stoop. Bat droppings, they looked a little like mouse droppings only larger, and were concentrated directly below the roost. Although I don’t think it was likely to do any good here, bat guano can be a very useful thing. In some areas, it’s collected from caves and used as a high-quality fertilizer. The bacteria harboured within it can also be used for detoxifying waste, improving detergents, and creating antibiotics.

bats3

Bats are the only mammals that can truly fly; other mammals may glide but are incapable of sustained flight. Their wings are thin membranes stretched across long bones that are modified hand bones. They catch their food, flying insects such as moths, beetles and mosquitoes, in flight. Small insects are snagged in their mouth, but larger ones may be caught in a pouch they form by curling forward. their back legs and tail, which also have membrane stretched between them to act as a rudder in the same manner as a bird’s tail.

The scientific name Myotis means “mouse ear”, and indeed their faces do have a mousey look. I really like bats, and since they’re big consumers of mosquitoes, am happy to have them roosting at our house. I hope I didn’t scare them away for long. There’s a bat box above the door, perhaps they’ll return to use it.