insectivorous Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Hi These plants are not in my knowledge to be classed as insectivorous as the plants do not: 1) Attracts prey to a trap. 2) Ensnares and Kills prey. 3) Digests into it's own plant cells I know that smell of other dead insects may bring some insects to them, and they may use the water to drink or to lay eggs into it. the insects may just fall in by mistake or knocked in by droplets of water from rain or mist. The plant may take in water into it's cells, but is due to need to get more water or due that it needs to stop rot or the pressure of to must water bending the leafs. Or it may have to empty the center to flower and keep it from rotting. Has any test been done to show that these plants need to kill to grow or that there is real design that makes it insectivorous? Is soil low in growth chemicals so the needs to eat insects? Are insects pulled to plant by colour of the flowers more at that time and it makes more full into the water? Are the roots found to be damaged by chemicals in tap water like many insectivorous plants and are there just to take in water and hold to the soil? As I have yet find these plants insectivorous ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantrid Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 HiThese plants are not in my knowledge to be classed as insectivorous as the plants do not: 1) Attracts prey to a trap. 2) Ensnares and Kills prey. 3) Digests into it's own plant cells I know that smell of other dead insects may bring some insects to them, and they may use the water to drink or to lay eggs into it. the insects may just fall in by mistake or knocked in by droplets of water from rain or mist. The plant may take in water into it's cells, but is due to need to get more water or due that it needs to stop rot or the pressure of to must water bending the leafs. Or it may have to empty the center to flower and keep it from rotting. Has any test been done to show that these plants need to kill to grow or that there is real design that makes it insectivorous? Is soil low in growth chemicals so the needs to eat insects? Are insects pulled to plant by colour of the flowers more at that time and it makes more full into the water? Are the roots found to be damaged by chemicals in tap water like many insectivorous plants and are there just to take in water and hold to the soil? As I have yet find these plants insectivorous ? You would need to trawl through the scientific journals to find if any such research has been carried out. A trip to your local university library should provide some answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisscool_38 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Yes, tests were done. I have read some publications, I hope I still have them. To answer the first point, Catopsis berteroniana, Brocchinia reducta and Brocchinia hectioides have a whitish substance on their leaves (called "pruine" in french, I don't know the translation) that reflects UV light so it can be a signal for insects to attract them. For the second point, the fluid in the center of the plants content a surfactant so that insects go straight to the bottom but can't "walk" and swim in the fluid. So it is a real trap for insects and arthropods. Third point, those plants don't digest their preys as they don't secrete enzymes. The digestion is made by bacterias. But those plants can absorbs nutrients by their leaves but they don't have specialized glands. So they are considered protocarnivorous and not true carnivorous plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenofeden Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 The digestion is made by bacterias. But those plants can absorbs nutrients by their leaves but they don't have specialized glands. So they are considered protocarnivorous and not true carnivorous plants. just like Darlingtonia then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Yes, tests were done. I have read some publications, I hope I still have them.To answer the first point, Catopsis berteroniana, Brocchinia reducta and Brocchinia hectioides have a whitish substance on their leaves (called "pruine" in french, I don't know the translation) that reflects UV light so it can be a signal for insects to attract them. Pruine = bloom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insectivorous Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Thanks for the replies UV is used in many flowers to aid the plant to get insects to pollinate them. And these are normally like arrow or pointing markings. But do these Catopsis berteroniana, Brocchinia reducta and Brocchinia hectioides UV have design that points to the water or is it just there to block out the high UV that is around the plant to stop damage to cells of leafs? The liquid in the middle may have a wetting agent, but is from the plant or from all bacterias and oils from the dead insects? Yes darlingtonia does use a bacteria to help the plant cells take in the nutrients and also sarracenia purpurea also use bacteria too, but both have cells that take in the nutrients. But both use other items to trap the insects and keep them trapped eg. hairs, wetting agents and mock windows. Are the soils poor like other insectivorous plant grow in? Also has there any tests been done to which chemicals the plants take in and need to grow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantrid Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 But do these Catopsis berteroniana, Brocchinia reducta and Brocchinia hectioides UV have design that points to the water or is it just there to block out the high UV that is around the plant to stop damage to cells of leafs? I dont think plants need pigments to protect from UV for the simple reason that plants are not like animals, their leaves are not designed to last a life time and are replaced continuously so it is not critical if within a leaf cellular damage occurs. In fact the presence of light blocking pigments will hinder the performance of the photosynthetic pignents. In an animal however, organs such as the skin are not completely replaced so damage/changes to cells here will be maintained and duplicated when the skin cells divide (e.g. cancers) and can prove fatal to the animal. So it is important that they have protective pigments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chloroplast Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I dont think plants need pigments to protect from UV for the simple reason that plants are not like animals, their leaves are not designed to last a life time and are replaced continuously so it is not critical if within a leaf cellular damage occurs. Plants do produce accessory pigments to protect themselves from UV radiation. this is because UV damage to chlorophyll and other proteins (or nucleic acids) can disrupt cellular processes essential to plant life. Chlorophyll isn't designed to utilize UV energy, so the trade-off in decreased photosynthesis is minimized. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.