Natural red form


Recommended Posts

Hi Vince, well I have certainly never seen any red forms for sale with location data but I guess they must exist somewhere.....unless all the red ones in cultivation are a result of some experiment or mutation - I'm not sure about that.

Heather

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

I would like to know if a red form of a Dionaea exists in nature?

So, a red Dionaea with a location, which can product seeds of red Dionaea also.

Thanks a lot :).

Regards,

Vince

Red forms would on occasions appear in the VFT natural habitat by random mutation. This would have happened countless times through their existence as a species. However, the fact that red is not the colour of the typical VFT in the wild then basic understanding of natural selection tells us that the red VFT are at some disadvantage (in their natural habitat) to the typical type, as they do not take over as the main form in the population. What this is we can only guess at.

Edited by mantrid
Link to post
Share on other sites
Red forms would on occasions appear in the VFT natural habitat by random mutation. This would have happened countless times through their existence as a species. However, the fact that red is not the colour of the typical VFT in the wild then basic understanding of natural selection tells us that the red VFT are at some disadvantage (in their natural habitat) to the typical type, as they do not take over as the main form in the population. What this is we can only guess at.

Perhaps because red plants are not as efficient photosynthesizers as green ones.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps because red plants are not as efficient photosynthesizers as green ones.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

That link is broken. Atleast I couldn't open it. :roll:

Actually, red plants drain a much larger spectr of the light than green ones. So, they also use the received ligh much better. Green ones actually waste moste of the light, but there's a reason. Even if the light is very important for the plants, it's better not to get too much of it. If plants were totally black (or in this case, very red) they would absorb too much light and create more energy than they could use. That energy would then react with other substances in the plant, and create dangerous compunds that might kill the very cells of the plant.

Red plants might also overheat in bright sun, as all their precious water reserves would evaporate in the air.

Okay, I checked some of that information from a finnish science magazine, but not all. :shock:

Edited by Sebulon
Link to post
Share on other sites

strange, it works for me. here is the abstract:

ABSTRACT

We have measured photosynthesis at the cellular, tissue, and whole leaf levels to understand the role of anthocyanin pigments on patterns of light utilization. Profiles of chlorophyll fluorescence through sections of red and green leaves of Quintinia serrata showed that anthocyanins in the mesophyll restricted absorption of green light to the uppermost palisade mesophyll. The distribution was further restricted when anthocyanins were also present in the upper epidermis. Mesophyll cells located beneath a cyanic light-filter assumed the characteristic photosynthetic features of shade-adapted cells. As a result, red leaves showed a 23% reduction in CO2 assimilation under light-saturating conditions, and a lower threshold irradiance for light-saturation, relative to those of green leaves. The photosynthetic characteristics of red leaves are comparable to those of shade-acclimated plants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first "All Red" VFT plant ever documented, is a VFT named "Holland Red".

VFT "Holland Red" is also the only "All Red" VFT to be documented wild collected as its origin.

"Holland Red" is still grown in many VFT collections today. Also "Holland Red" is the direct parent plant of the VFT "Red Dragon" and "Green Dragon", and possibly the parent of some other "All Red" VFT.

If you want the only documented, wild collected "All Red" VFT then get a "Holland Red".

Brad

Ventura California

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, red plants drain a much larger spectr of the light than green ones. So, they also use the received ligh much better. Green ones actually waste moste of the light, but there's a reason. Even if the light is very important for the plants, it's better not to get too much of it. If plants were totally black (or in this case, very red) they would absorb too much light and create more energy than they could use. That energy would then react with other substances in the plant, and create dangerous compunds that might kill the very cells of the plant.

Red plants would absorb more in the green spectrum and less in the red. Chlorophyll absorbs light at 430 and 662 nm (blue and red respectively), therefore green light is of no use, hence most plants are green as this is reflected. Red pigmentation would reduce the amount of red light being absorbed, therefore decrease the useful light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That link is broken. Atleast I couldn't open it. :shock:

Actually, red plants drain a much larger spectr of the light than green ones. So, they also use the received ligh much better. Green ones actually waste moste of the light, but there's a reason. Even if the light is very important for the plants, it's better not to get too much of it. If plants were totally black (or in this case, very red) they would absorb too much light and create more energy than they could use. That energy would then react with other substances in the plant, and create dangerous compunds that might kill the very cells of the plant.

I think the real reason is that photosystem I and II receive energy from their respective light harvesting complexes which are in turn only stimulated by specific wavelengths of light, Thats why they waste most of it. Also as they only require these narrow range of wavelengths they do not require pigments that absorb other wavelengths.

Edited by mantrid
Link to post
Share on other sites
The first "All Red" VFT plant ever documented, is a VFT named "Holland Red".

VFT "Holland Red" is also the only "All Red" VFT to be documented wild collected as its origin.

"Holland Red" is still grown in many VFT collections today. Also "Holland Red" is the direct parent plant of the VFT "Red Dragon" and "Green Dragon", and possibly the parent of some other "All Red" VFT.

If you want the only documented, wild collected "All Red" VFT then get a "Holland Red".

Brad

Ventura California

Would that mean VFT 'Holland Red' seeds would grow into the same cultivar as their mother plant? Would one be allowed to name seedling 'Holland Red'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Amar

Below is what it says for holland red on the cultivars database - it does say by seed or vegetative propagation. Personally I only use vegetative propagation for ALL my vfts but it does look like seed is permitted for this one, the same is true for red burgundy. I would think using seeds would mean the offspring wouldn't be identical to the mother plant, perhaps that doesnt matter for these but would still urge people to use vegetative means for all vfts but thats my personal view. If you want to use seed then state that method has been used for propagation when you pass the resulting plants on.....

N: $[Dionaea ' Holland Red ' {M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl}]

P: Taublatt 51:21 (2005)

S: =[Dionaea muscipula {Soland. Ex Ellis}]

B: a commercial breeder in the Netherlands, 1970s

Nominant: anonymus ex M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl, Ahaus & Moenchengladbach, DE

Registrant: M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl, 19. 4. 2005

HC: Registered 24. 11. 2005 {JS}

Description: Taublatt 51:21 (2005) (in German)

"[Dionaea ' Holland Red ' {M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl}] grows like the nominate form. This plant follows the already described annual cycle. The plant starts in spring with the first set of prostrate leaves with short petioles, after flower these are followed by long petiolate mid- summer leaves, to form the last set of wider short petiolate winter leaves in late summer or autumn. The leaf rosette reaches a diameter of ca. 10 cm and individual traps may attain a size of up to ca. 3 cm. The red colouration of the leaves depends, however, strongly on light conditions. Only plants exposed to full sunlight colour more or less intensely red or red-brown. In winter the plants frequently get green leaf margins or even whole plant portions that do not receive sufficient light remain dark green. As soon as the plants are exposed to more intense sunlight, the colour begins to change to typical again."

Standard: Taublatt 51:20&21 (2005)

Propagation: by seed or vegetatively

Etymology: after the location of the nursery that first made the plants available and after the colouration of the plants

image: Check Bob Ziemer's Photo Finder

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red plants would absorb more in the green spectrum and less in the red. Chlorophyll absorbs light at 430 and 662 nm (blue and red respectively), therefore green light is of no use, hence most plants are green as this is reflected. Red pigmentation would reduce the amount of red light being absorbed, therefore decrease the useful light.

But if there is excess of useful light, red plants have the advantage by not warming up as much as green plants...

And that's the basis of the dependancy between intensity/duration of light and red pigmentation in D. muscipula.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red forms would on occasions appear in the VFT natural habitat by random mutation. This would have happened countless times through their existence as a species. However, the fact that red is not the colour of the typical VFT in the wild then basic understanding of natural selection tells us that the red VFT are at some disadvantage (in their natural habitat) to the typical type, as they do not take over as the main form in the population. What this is we can only guess at.

Another possibility is that any red plants are quickly poached. The small population of VFTs in general would also mean genetic oddities are less likely than if they were left in peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if there is excess of useful light, red plants have the advantage by not warming up as much as green plants...

And that's the basis of the dependancy between intensity/duration of light and red pigmentation in D. muscipula.

Why would green plants warm up any more than red? They both absorb light, just at different wavelengths. Surely having a permanent red pigmentation, which blocks some of the light required for photosynthesis, would be an evolutionary disadvantage. Would that not be the reason why there are more green plants than red?

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Because heat radiation (Infra Red) is reflected more by a red plant than a green one?

- Because a byproduct of photosynthesis is heat devopment inside the plant? so more photosynthesis means more heat?

- Because the red part of the light spectrum is much wider than the green? so a green plant absorbs more light than a red plant? see spectrum here

- Extract from Wikipedia when searching for the term "anthocyanin": "In photosynthetic tissues (such as leaves and sometimes stems), anthocyanins have been shown to act as a "sunscreen", protecting cells from high-light damage by absorbing blue-green and UV light, thereby protecting the tissues from photoinhibition, or high-light stress." For those who don't know, anthocyanin is the molecule responsible for the red coloring in plant tissue. Further search on Wikipedia for the term photoinhibition: "Photoinhibition is a reduction in a plant's (or other photosynthetic organism's e.g. algae or cyanobacteria) capacity for photosynthesis caused by exposure to high light intensity (above the saturation point). Photoinhibition is not caused by high light per se, but rather absorption of too much light energy compared with the photosynthetic capacity, i.e. any excess energy that the photosystem cannot handle is damaging." To clarify why excess energy is damaging: because it's converted to heat in the plant...

My personal conclusion: Being all red is not an evolutionary disadvantage in climates with excess light (as i stated 3 posts higher).

Besides warming up less, it attracts prey better.

In anycase, whatever the explanation might be, in their natural habitat VFTs react to more and intense light by turning more red. The plant must have it's reason for it, so even if my explanation is completely flawed, i stand by my opinion that in warmer climates with excess of useful light, "all red" plants have an advantage. I agree that in more temperate climates with less light, "all green" plants have the (photosynthetic) advantage, but still attract prey less efficient.

Edited by NZL
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because heat radiation (Infra Red) is reflected more by a red plant than a green one?

I would believe the opposite to be true. Dark colours absorb more energy and do not reflect it, therefore a black car is hotter than a white car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would believe the opposite to be true. Dark colours absorb more energy and do not reflect it, therefore a black car is hotter than a white car.

Please don't use black and white as examples.

Black is not a color [and thus absorbs all wavelengths in the visible spectrum] and not present in the visible light spectrum

White is the sum of all colors [and thus reflects all wavelengths in the visible spectrum] and also not present in the visible light spectrum

These two "colors" are exceptions.

Also you say dark colours absorb more energy, but how do you decide between green and red which colour is the darkest? Not to mention all the different shades of green and red. :tu:

Do we have test subjects driving the same car model but a green and a red one?

Edited by NZL
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't use black and white as examples.

Black is not a color [and thus absorbs all wavelengths in the visible spectrum] and not present in the visible light spectrum

White is the sum of all colors [and thus reflects all wavelengths in the visible spectrum] and also not present in the visible light spectrum

These two "colors" are exceptions.

I think you're getting into the fundamentals of black and white, as opposed to the paint pigments Amar used in his example.

Without being too clever, there's obviously a difference between dark red and light green, although they'll be areas of lighter red and darker green in various areas.

If you want to check, stick a leaf of both on a scanner. You'll be able to sample the colour values of the leaves and determine darkness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

I would like to know if a red form of a Dionaea exists in nature?

So, a red Dionaea with a location, which can product seeds of red Dionaea also.

Thanks a lot :).

Regards,

Vince

I have seen predominantly red Dionaea in the field within the last ten years or so -- easily as red as the Akai Ryu -- so red as to appear black in the sun; but I could not give precise locations after all of this time. Also, even if a plant is self-fertilizing like Dionaea, there is no real guarantee -- after meiosis -- that any seed-grown offspring will necessarily carry that very red trait. You would need to have vegetative cuttings or divisions of the corm from the subject plant to ensure that that trait persists

Edited by loligo1964
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
The first "All Red" VFT plant ever documented, is a VFT named "Holland Red".

VFT "Holland Red" is also the only "All Red" VFT to be documented wild collected as its origin.

"Holland Red" is still grown in many VFT collections today. Also "Holland Red" is the direct parent plant of the VFT "Red Dragon" and "Green Dragon", and possibly the parent of some other "All Red" VFT.

If you want the only documented, wild collected "All Red" VFT then get a "Holland Red".

Brad

Ventura California

Hi Brad, would not 'Red Burgundy' also be a naturally red plant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal conclusion: Being all red is not an evolutionary disadvantage in climates with excess light (as i stated 3 posts higher).

Besides warming up less, it attracts prey better.

In anycase, whatever the explanation might be, in their natural habitat VFTs react to more and intense light by turning more red. The plant must have it's reason for it, so even if my explanation is completely flawed, i stand by my opinion that in warmer climates with excess of useful light, "all red" plants have an advantage. I agree that in more temperate climates with less light, "all green" plants have the (photosynthetic) advantage, but still attract prey less efficient.

If the red pigment is developed in the sun as protection then VFTs in the field would go red all over not just concentrated in the traps. Also if red pigmentation gives some kind of protection against damaging rays of the sun, then why are most cacti green? Surely in their habitat they would have evolved red pigmentation long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the red pigment is developed in the sun as protection then VFTs in the field would go red all over not just concentrated in the traps.

VFTs in the field are only indigenous to south NC and North SC, some cultivated varieties are all red, but there's just no need for it in NC and SC since there is no excess of light in this area.

Evolution has selected VFTs with red traps over all green VFTs because they attract prey better. If you'd introduce VFTs in the wild [which is not allowed btw] in areas with excess light, and the VFT would survive this, you'll probably see more and more of their offspring starting to become all red over some time [on an evolutionary time scale ofcourse]

The all green VFT varieties probably exist because of a mutation in one of the genes required for the biosynthesis of the red pigment.

The all red VFT varieties probably exist because of another random mutation. My guess here would be a mutation that destroyed some gene that inhibited the red pigmentation biosynthesis in the other parts of the plant.

Also if red pigmentation gives some kind of protection against damaging rays of the sun, then why are most cacti green? Surely in their habitat they would have evolved red pigmentation long ago.

Darwin is turning in his grave. That's not how evolution works mantrid. A (really) fast turtle would also be evolutionary ahead of slow turtles, but they don't exist either. For that matter, why aren't we humans all like Superman?

Evolution is not spontaneously looking for better alternatives in a stressful environment. It still all happens by sheer coincidence (random mutations, inversions, deletions, whatever.. but with the stress on random) followed by natural selection. Cacti developed other strategies to cope in their environment, like a thick cuticule, defense mechanism for animals trying to drink cactus juice, etc... Maybe in the future there will be red cacti that will thrive better than their green cousins, and for all i know there already are red cacti out there somewhere.

Edited by NZL
Link to post
Share on other sites
VFTs in the field are only indigenous to south NC and North SC, some cultivated varieties are all red, but there's just no need for it in NC and SC since there is no excess of light in this area.

How could you possibly know this.

Evolution has selected VFTs with red traps over all green VFTs because they attract prey better.

Exactly, it has nothing to do with protection against harmful rays otherwise it would have evolved in the rest of the tissue of the wild type.

If you'd introduce VFTs in the wild [which is not allowed btw] in areas with excess light, and the VFT would survive this, you'll probably see more and more of their offspring starting to become all red over some time [on an evolutionary time scale ofcourse]

Sorry but this is just speculation and based on no valid scientific reasoning (reminds me of the pseudo science surrounding beauty products and intelligent design and all that c**p). Red VFTs do not exist anywhere in the wild in abundance. Their survival is purely down to artificial selection by man. If natural selection was at work the wildtype VFT would be red.

The all red VFT varieties probably exist because of another random mutation. My guess here would be a mutation that destroyed some gene that inhibited the red pigmentation biosynthesis in the other parts of the plant.

I think its more a case of the default phenotype of the plant is green, and the red pigmentation has evolved in the traps as it is the most useful place for it to be for attracting flys. It would serve no/less purpose in the rest of the plant for attracting insects into the trap hence it has not been incorporated into the wild type by natural selection. So its not a case of a gene being altered/lost to eliminate red pigmentation from the whole plant except the traps, but rather a case of a gene(s) being modified/added to cause the development of pigmentation in the traps, which confers an advantage to the plant hence this pattern of colouration has become the norm in the wild type due to natural selection.

Darwin is turning in his grave. That's not how evolution works mantrid. A (really) fast turtle would also be evolutionary ahead of slow turtles, but they don't exist either. For that matter, why aren't we humans all like Superman?

A fast turtle would not be a turtle, as its shell would have to be lost to enable it bo be lighter and more agile. They do exist its just that they are called lizards.

Cacti developed other strategies to cope in their environment, like a thick cuticule, defense mechanism for animals trying to drink cactus juice, etc... Maybe in the future there will be red cacti that will thrive better than their green cousins

We are specifically talking about protection from UV radiation, not evolotion of spines and water storage tissue. A THICK cuticle in a cacti is relative, and is actually quite thin, and would not prevent the penetration of UV. If it had much effect at blocking radiation it would probably be a disadvantage as it would also block light penetration to the underlying photosynthetic tissue.

, and for all i know there already are red cacti out there somewhere.

I'm sure there are, but the majority are green and they require no special red pigmentation for protection.

Edited by mantrid
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll always have difficulty gauging how many red plants are in the wild due to poaching. They'll be removed within a couple of years of adult hood, just as ornate sarracenia flavas are targeted and the plainer var. flavas are left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.