What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

N. ampullaria deteriovore

lol

BANNED
My curiosity on ampullaria's habit of catching falling leaf matter and effectively using it has been peaked. I just fed some lettuce to my rafflesiana giant and sanguinea to see how they will be affected. After less than 5 mins. in the raff pitcher, the pieces of lettuce are already going brown
smile.gif
. Also, look at CPUK's discussion on the subject-
http://www.cpukforum.com/forum....start=0

The evidence is overwhelming that they can use the fallen leaf litter. One person just mentioned a study that said 36% of the foliar nitrogen in some ampullarias was derived from litter, and that plants in the open showed signs of Nitrogen-deficiency. I just fed my raff giant a some lettuce in light of this :p ! I guess it shouldn't be surprising that plants can benefeit from plant matter in the pitchers. I just didn't think the enzymes produced in the fluid would be sufficient to break down the matter and nutrients. It could be from bacteria breakdown too. Regardless of how it is broken down, if you know anything biology, you'd know that there is a great deal more energy to be derived from producers/plants. I suspect that if the pitchers can effectively break down plant matter, they could greatly benefeit from vegie feeding. 90% of the total energy is lost in every step of the food change as you go from producers to consumers.
 
a vegiteriana nepenthes?!?!?!
noooooooooooooooo!
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
Loke, when you fed the amp what is the state of viscosity of the enzyme.

..Robert
 
Hey LOL, you might be better off trying your experiment with some leafs that have more nutrients than lettus. I think of lettus as simply crunchy water! Maybe a nice spinnach leaf or something....
 
Well feeding with insect is still more effective..There are a lot more nutritiens in an insect then in a lettuce leaf.

We had something about that in school on our biologi lessions.

1kg of meat = 10kg of vegetables
 
1kg of meat = 10kg of vegetables
What does that mean?  Are you trying to compare the energy in the meat vs. vegetables?  If you are studying biology, you should be learning that energy is lost by 90% for every transfer as you go up the food chain.
 
Yes It was something like that.
Then meat has more nutritiens then vegetables
 
Remember Tyfone, while animals may have more nutrients (more complex chemical compounds), plants don't need those extra nutrients present in animals and higher life forms. They only need and use what can be found in most plants. They are carnivorous primarily to recieve nitrogen from their prey. As far as the other nutrients/minerals they need, I can't say.
 
well,that mean ampullarias and all neps are omnivorous. what is happening is not by accident. Mother nature have pre-arranged for the way neps behave,esp ampullaria. It is the struggle for survival and only the fittest will survive. where conditions are right the pollen germinate. Those that happened to take root under trees with many foliage cover benefited the most while those in the open with slightest protection depend on crawlers and flies. The roots are runners underground and continuing to produce new growth,one cluster here ,another there,weeks and months past carpeting an area. Yes the finest example in the carnivorous plant kingdom:O

15.jpg


..Robert
 
  • #10
I remember reading in Charles Clarke's book that the release of nutrients from leaves is a very slow process.  The leaves that fall into the pitchers are quickly broken down by the various organisms that live in the fluid.  The organisms secrete waste products that contain nitrogen, and that is where the pitchers get their nutrients from.

I don't think the plant would benefit much from leaves without the organisms.  The enzymes that the plant produces are designed to break apart the peptide bonds in protein in order to extract the Nitrogen from it.  Leaves are low in protein, so the enzymes aren't much use.  

A person can't compare the digestive process of an animal to the digestive process in pitcher plants.  Just because something has a lot of energy trapped in it doesn't mean the organisms can utilize it efficiently.  Wood has a lot of stored energy, and yet I can chew on it all day and get very little from it.  It's true that noting is wasted.  If I ate wood, It would pass through my system, and the energy would be transferred to micro organisms.

Brian
 
  • #11
I believe that the microorganisms and bacteria in milk should be sufficient to break down the vegetative matter, shouldn't it? I've fed quite a few of my plants lettuce, carrots, bannana peels, grapes, and some other salad stuff. I will monitor their growth to see if there are any changes.
 
  • #12
For humans, utilizing fats produces more calories (energy) than protein and carbohydrates (plant matter). Simply put, consuming a pound of butter will yeild far more energy than a pound of lettuce. In fact, for humans, lettuce and celery have almost zero nutritional value because they are composed largely of cellulose which the human digestive system cannot break down.

But as Brian said,

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]A person can't compare the digestive process of an animal to the digestive process in pitcher plants. Just because something has a lot of energy trapped in it doesn't mean the organisms can utilize it efficiently.

Absolutely. From what I've read, nepenthes pitcher fluid contains mostly peptidases which cleave peptides (proteins). Evolutionarily, this makes sense considering the plants' main source of nitrogen is from insects which are composed largely of protein. The pitcher fluid has very little (or no) cellulases and lipases needed to digest cellulose and fats, respectively. But it may be home to bacteria that have those enzymes, which may give the pitcher the ability to "indirectly" digest dead leaves.

That said, I foliar feed my neps with fertilizer, so all of this is a moot issue for me! But it's still interesting to discuss....
 
  • #13
Hi guys.  Ok.  I am noticing veeeeeeery large growth on my N. rafflesiana giant.  The conditions have been the same.  Same light, and almost no change in temps, with slightly higher humidity.  Ever since I got my rafflesiana its been steadily increasing in size, about 1" or less gain per leaf.  As you know, I fed two of its pitcher with lettuce, carrots, grapes, and some other small salad stuff.  This newest leaf is big, 3-4" longer than the last, and still growing!  It would apear that the next leaf on my khasiana x truncata (gave it the same treatment) will be quite a bit larger as well.  If you ask me, I think the vegie feeding has been a great success.  I believe the grapes were the best thing.  I should also note that I have also been using superthrive more regularly, and the humidity has been higher, so it wasn't a controled experiment.  But whatever is causing the tremendous growth, I hope it continues
smile_n_32.gif
!
 
  • #14
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I am noticing veeeeeeery large growth on my N. rafflesiana giant....and khasiana x truncata

That's great to hear! Just curious--do you have a N.rafflesiana or khasiana x truncata under similar conditions and being fed food that you normally use? If so, what's their growth rate relative to those being fed the veggies?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But whatever is causing the tremendous growth, I hope it continues

I think the same thing whenever one of my plants starts a growth spurt. It's incredible how tempermental some plants can be.
smile.gif
 
  • #15
Look how much larger the leaf is! Over 4" longer than the last. You can see the tinge of red on the light green leaf which tells you it's getting plenty of light. I can only contribute the boon in growth to what I've been feeding it.

IMAGE_202.jpg
 
  • #16
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmm
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
Back
Top