RSS

Author Archives: George Rogers

Unknown's avatar

About George Rogers

Florida botanist

Hat Pins, Isoetids … and bassackwards gases

Eriocaulon decangulare, E. compressum

Eriocaulaceae

John and George enjoyed getting out into the piney forest today; after a chilly dawn the day turned spectacular.  We planned a group walk through a scrubby pinewoods zone in Seabranch State Park. Most of today’s sightings have already entered this blog, so we’ll drift to the marshy area near the swamp where we’ve spent much time lately. (OK, we got lost there.) (Really)

Ant nest in marsh.  Crematogaster atkinsoni?

Ant nest in marsh. Crematogaster atkinsoni?

Hello there

Hello there … who bumped our nest?

As an aside due to John getting us into ants, in every sense, here is some ant biz.   In marshy places (this photo from the Cypress Creek Natural Area) are ants in big papery nests resembling hornet nests, and presumably safe above the high water line.   They seem to be Crematogaster atkinsoni, known to behave this way in Florida.  But don’t bet the (ant) farm!  This is a plants blog.

Attractive in the midwinter sunshine are species of Eriocaulon and similar genera in the Pipewort Family. They go by several English names: Hat Pins, Pipeworts, Bog Buttons.  Some folks hitch the different English names to individual genera, but the species all look too much alike for single handles to stick to single species.  The flower stalks truly do look like hat pins, the plants standing from a few inches tall to knee-high depending on the age, habitat, and species.

Eriocaulon compressum (by John Bradford)

Eriocaulon compressum (by John Bradford)

Now consider briefly a separate group of aquatic plants, the genus Isoetes, also known as quillworts.  There are plenty in Florida but not in our immediate haunts. The reason for an intrusive Isoetes non sequitur is to explain the name “isoetids,”   defined as plants resembling Isoetes not as genetic relatives, but as unrelated species sharing a peculiar aquatic growth form.  They look like slightly succulent grasses.  The plants have air channels in their leaves and roots, and have roots clustered intimately with the leaf bases. The root mass is disproportionately large relative to the foliage.

Ten-angle Pipestem, the root mass is intimate with the leaf bases, and there's a lot of root. (By John Bradford)

Ten-Angle Pipewort, the root mass is intimate with the leaf bases, and there’s a lot of root. (By John Bradford)

The isoetids have a unique life style to go with their characteristic life form.  The most abundant and thoroughly studied example  in our area is the so-called Ten-Angled Pipewort,  Eriocaulon decangulare. The similar Eriocaulon compressum has the same structure.

Eriocaulon compressum with hanger-on

Is this a tuffet?  Eriocaulon compressum with comfy guest

If you’ve read through the boring blah blah blah this far perhaps you’re waiting to see the shockingly unique life style unveiled. Here we go:  In second grade we all learned that plants absorb carbon dioxide through their foliage to let photosynthesis manufacture sugars. But today we learn that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Ten-Angle Pipestem roots, showing air channels.  The following photo shows the same root cut open.    Gasses pass through the reinforcing cross-supports.

Space worms?  No,  Ten-Angle Pipewort roots, showing air spaces. The following photo shows the same root cut open. Gases pass through the porous reinforcing cross-supports.

Eriocaulon decangulare root cut open

Eriocaulon decangulare root cut open to show the air channels

When you spy a plant with big puffy air channels in its leaves and roots, it is natural to assume a ductwork system open to the clear blue sky.  Those roots need help down in the mud!  But no—wrong, or partly wrong.   Here’s the problem. Many isoetids live completely submerged with no opening to the air.   Ooops, we have the airshaft upside down—-they are exchanging gases through the roots.

Ten-Angle Pipewort root-stem-leaf junction upside-down.  The fluffy material around the margin are inverted leaf bases.  The porous white center is the inverted stem base with its air channels.  At 2 o'clock a single inverted  root enters the system delivering CO2 immediately at the leaf bases and the stem air-channels.  (The thin thread at the tip of the root is a vein left behind when the spongy exterior was stripped off.)

Ten-Angle Pipewort root-stem-leaf junction root end-up. The fluffy material around the margin are leaf bases. The porous white center is the inverted stem base with its air channels. At 2 o’clock a single upside-down root delivers CO2 immediately at the leaf bases and at the stem air-channels. (The thin thread at the tip of the root is a vein left behind when the spongy exterior was stripped off.)

A completely or partially submerged plant lives in stinky goo with plenty of decay going on down there. The roots absorb carbon dioxide from soil microbial activity, bacterial waste gas,  sending the CO2 upward to the leaves for photosynthesis. And waste oxygen escapes down and out through the roots.

This creates the possibility of symbiotic relationships with soil bacteria happy to “breathe” that waste oxygen exiting the roots, and eager to make carbon dioxide to enter the roots.  Maybe those bacteria are even decaying material the plant produces.  I’ll bet that’s happening with Eriocaulon, but am not aware of research showing it in that genus.  Gas-exchange symbiosis with root bacteria is, however, documented in Isoetes itself.  Just think, the entire cycle of life, a mini ecosystem, all in one cubic foot of soil. Maybe.

Ten-angle pipestem flower head (by John Bradford)

Ten-Angle Pipewort flower head (by John Bradford)

———————————————-

Note.  For a deeper look: Raven, J. A. et al.  The role of CO2 uptake and CAM in acquisition of inorganic C by plants of the isoetid life-form: a review, with new data on Eriocaulon decangulare L.  New Phytologist 108: 125-148. 1988.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 29, 2015 in Eriocaulon

 

Tags: ,

Blackberry Jam

Rubus (subgenus Rubus) species

Rosaceae

Seeking botanical good times in the Seabranch State Park swamp this week and last, near Hobe Sound Florida, John and George just can’t stay out of the swamp, though the mosquitoes may shift that obsession.  John shot a gigapan panoramic image of the mire. (See if you can find me mooning the reader therein.)  Also underfoot were germinated fern spores, more properly known as fern gametophytes, a pretty picture for today although not a topic to explore right now.

Fern babies (gametophytes). By John Bradford. These are about 1/4

Fern babies (gametophytes). By John Bradford. These are about 1/4″ across.

Some of the more eye-grabbing and pants-grabbing specimens are blackberries, in full bloom in January.  Let’s give them their due.  I’ve seen blackberries called a “taxonomist’s nightmare,” but that would be a taxonomist who feels that variation must conform dutifully to a human concept of distinct species. I see blackberries a little differently—as a taxonomist’s dream come true, in the sense of a complex dynamic pattern of organization that couldn’t give a hoot about human preconceptions.

Blackberries (By JB) (Old picture, out of season, not taken this week.)

Blackberries (By JB) (Old picture, out of season, not taken this week.)

Nobody can say how many species of blackberries exist, because they do not sort into traditional species.  (Allow me now for convenience to expand the conversation to embrace blackberries, raspberries, and other close relatives making us the entire genus Rubus.)  Worldwide there are perhaps 700-1000 “species” of sorts, but more interestingly there are also thousands (repeat, thousands) of widespread genetically identical clonal variants, hybrids, possible ancient cultivars, and sundry evolutionary offshoots, including strains with abnormal chromosome numbers.    (In short, pseudo-species separated by small genetic differences arising in a moment by cloning, as opposed to true species evolving gradually by accumulated genetic processes.)

At least four population characteristics make blackberries so devilishly interesting:

1. Everything eats them. As the most delicious food on earth, blackberries feed everything from rodents to raccoons to bears to birds. I once had a golden retriever who enjoyed berry picking.  The creatures move them all over the place aided by little piles of natural fertilizer. This might help explain why so many “types” of blackberries are so geographically widespread.   As an example, cloudberry  (Rubus chamaemorus) circles the globe at northern latitudes, wobbling as far south as Long Island.

2. Everybody eats blackberries. As long as there have been hunter-gather humans they have certainly hunted and gathered blackberries.  Blackberry seeds dot coprolites. (The Coprolites were not an ancient mesopotamian kingdom.) Blackberries long long ago were probably ancient camp followers thriving on waste heaps near human settlements, where humans could go select, perpetuate, and spread their favorite strains, probably creating ancient cultivars. You can be sure that our ancestors helped stir the blackberry genetic pot bringing different variants together, inadvertently producing hybrids, and moving them around.

3. Many blackberries reproduce asexually. They clone.  Many form non-sexual seeds genetically identical to the mother plant. This skill allows minor genetic variants, hybrids, and clones favored by bears, birds, Neanderthals, or the climate to expand their populations and spread.

4. Species of Rubus can be careless about their chromosomes. “Normal” plant species (with very many exceptions) have chromosomes in pairs. But blackberries and their relatives sometimes sport multiple chromosome sets and other chromosomal aberrations. You can get away with that when you reproduce asexually, as the main problem with screwy chromosomes is a thwarted sexual cycle. And blackberries are happy to hybridize.

Blackberries are in bloom now.  Look like little roses, don't they?

Blackberries are in bloom now. Look like little roses, don’t they? Photo taken this week.

So let’s sum up the messy situation. Here you have a group of plants moved around by every living thing and monkeyed with by every prehistoric human.   Mobility brings divergent evolutionary lines together, providing chances to hybridize, which blackberries are so willing to do. Hybrids on average have a rough time facing the real world, unless they are able to clone asexually; oh yeah, did I mention blackberries do that…and then move around again by crows or Cro-Magnons just to stir things up more.

One way to tackle such a complex situation is to grab one thread and yank on it. Let’s do that for our local blackberries. Even that’s not so easy to do, as you may understand from reading this, because a glance at different references reveals the expected disagreement as to what species of Rubus live in our local counties. Let’s go arbitrarily with one modern reference and pull forth three species names: Rubus cuneifolius, R. pensilvanicus, and R. trivialis.  Are any of these locals fuzzy to define or otherwise involved in genetic mischief?

Rubus cuneifolius is a nice “diploid” (with paired chromosomes) species, or is it? Strains with chromosomes in sets of three and four are reported. One sign of taxonomic confusion within a species is synonymy, that is, the existence of additional names interpretably pertaining to that species. I got bored and quit counting after finding 18 synonyms, including the “Rubus dixiensis.”  Makes me want to whistle.    

Another interesting measure of messiness is finding documented hybrids involving a purported species.  I quickly found five and quit counting.  One of them is especially intriguing. Our Rubus cuneifolius is in South Africa an invasive exotic, and seems to hybridize with multiple African species, most saliently with Rubus longepedicellatus.   These two species have spawned what’s known as a hybrid swarm.  The swarm is a geographically widespread series of novel strains not belonging to either parental species.  “Shake-n -bake”  instant species!

Some books say we have Rubus pensilvanicus, others that we have R. argutus.   I sure don’t want to quibble on this question, because the whole point of this post is to underscore the murkiness.   So easy to be expert when simplistic!  Botanical life gets more complex than “either-or.”  Rubus pensilvanicus is no clean-living species.  On the U.S. West Coast, it has generated a hybrid mess with at least one western species, a pattern reminiscent of our sordid South African story.

OK then, what about Rubus trivialis…do we have one true blue species here?  Naw—guess what one of its hybridization partners is, our own Rubus cuneifolius, the same species that mixes it up in South Africa fools around here in Florida with R. trivialis.

Blackberry branch (by JB)

Blackberry branch (by JB)

So when John and I snag in blackberry bramble and say “oh rats,” is it Rubus pensilvanicus, R. argutus, R. trivialis, R. cuneifolius, or none of the above…or a mix of the above?  Or a mix of the above and more?  (I did not label the photos.)

BB Foliage (by JB)

BB Foliage (by JB)

 
7 Comments

Posted by on January 24, 2015 in Blackberries

 

Tags:

Pallavicinia – Liverwort

Pallavicinia lyellii

Pallaviciniaceae

Today when John and George went botanizing it was nippy, so we felt no surprise in finding the perkiest plants to be a species native as far north as New Brunswick, not suffering from today’s chill. This is the most widespread species you’ve never noticed. Ranging from Canada into South America, out to California, and across the world to Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa, in other words almost everywhere.

Being that widespread of course Pallavicinia lyellii visits varied habitats with an overall affection for wet acid situations under broadleaf trees. This is exactly where we found it in Seabranch State Park abundant throughout the largely hardwood-dominated swamp at the east edge of the park, a botanical museum of ferns, mosses, lichens, and  liverworts.

Not every reader will be familiar with liverworts.   They are related to mosses and are among the most primitive land plants on earth. They are the oldest known land plant fossils, dating back 473 million years. A look at certain liverworts and a peek at similar green algae makes it easy to believe that the land plants evolved from the green algae, as they in fact did.  I don’t want to go too far down that technical road today. Suffice it to say that liverworts and their relatives have no roots, no veins, poorly (or un-) differentiated leaves or stems, no flowers, no fruits, and no seeds.  They look like seaweeds and stay close to the water.

Leafy liverwort

Leafy liverwort

There are several thousand species of liverworts worldwide divided into two basic types. One group, called the leafy liverworts, resembles mosses by having stems and leaves, although the plants are usually even smaller (you need a hand lens), flat, and with round leaf blades. Look for them on tree trunks and wet hummocks mixed with moss.   Today’s feature species belongs to the other major group, called the thallose liverworts, these consisting of almost nothing more than what looks like a wet green leaf spread irregularly on a wet surface, often mud or decayed log.

Pallavicinia lyellii  liverwort with gametophyte (green) and sporophyte (the thread). By John Bradford

Pallavicinia lyellii liverwort with gametophyte (green) and sporophyte (the thread). By John Bradford

As you can see, John captured a beautiful portrait of Pallavicinia lyellii with its leafy seaweed plant body.  The ruffly little cabbages on the foliar surfaces are the female egg-making apparatus. The sperm-making structures are on separate male plants. The brown cap on the delicate white thread is the spore-making system (sporophyte). It makes the spores that blow way to re-establish the liverwort all the way from here to Timbuktu. Spore-making plants such as fungi, mosses, ferns, and liverworts often have wide windblown distributions.

What does the name liverwort mean?  The wort part is just an old word referring to an herbaceous plant. The reference to liver is more telling. This dates back to an historical dogma called the doctrine of signatures, which attributed plants with benefits according to their appearances. So a plant resembling a fetus was good for birth, birthwort, and lungworts were beneficial for your lungs, and liverworts are liver medicines. I’m not completely sure what the resemblance to the liver is.   I’ve heard two explanations: Some liverworts are lobed in a way resembling a liver.  Alternatively, a microscopic view of a liverwort can suggest the microscopic view of a liver. Either way I don’t think they help much medically.  But they are top-quality botanical curiosities and they help make it all much more fun to explore the infinite world of green.  Here are some local liverworts from our “archives.”

Riccardia latifrons sporophyte

Riccardia sporophyte (spore-making generation) on surface on gametophyte

Riccardia pinguis (I think)

Riccardia pinguis

Sphaerocarpus, Riverbend Park, Jupiter, Florida

Sphaerocarpus, Riverbend Park, Jupiter, Florida

 
4 Comments

Posted by on January 16, 2015 in Pallavicinia

 

Tags:

Indian Pipes

Monotropa uniflora

Ericaceae (Monotropaceae)

From the middle of December until this week John and George deferred exploration of Sebranch state park in favor of family activities and dental appointments, but today we got back to it. During the holiday hiatus John developed an eye for an odd plant you don’t see often. Twice he found Indian Pipes, Monotropa uniflora, a ghostly white species in the azalea family.  We checked it out in Seabranch State Park today.

Indian pipes in flower.  By John Bradford

Indian pipes in flower. By John Bradford

The pipes are white because they have no chlorophyll; they have no chlorophyll because they do not photosynthesize; they don’t photosynthesize because they depend 100% for nutrition on fungi associated with the roots. The fungi extract nutrients from decaying soil organic matter and apparently more importantly steal sugary nutrients from neighboring plants.  The guilty fungi form mushrooms, so probably you can sometimes see all three members of the trio at once:  trees, mushrooms, and Monotropas.  No, I did not say every mushroom in the vicinity is involved.  Problem is, what goes on underground is complex and exasperatingly hard to study.  Research reveals the Monotropas to be fussy about their fungal friends, although this seems to vary geographically.

What’s turned out is that in the huge world of root-fungus symbioses, Monotropa and its close relatives possess their own mycorrhizal system, not even the same as the rest of their own Ericaceae family.   The fungus makes a net around the root, covering the tip, and fungal strands penetrate the root forming “pegs” but never breaking through into the actual root cell contents.  There are major anatomical changes in the root to accommodate the invader and to facilitate nutrient transfer.  The greatest fungus-root activity occurs as pods and seeds form.

The pods stand upright.  By John Bradford

The pods stand upright. By John Bradford

Monotropa favors conifers.  Radioactive carbon introduced experimentally to conifers crossed the fungal bridge into the Monotropa, and the reverse occurred with phosphorus.  A fungus-mediated swap?  Perhaps, but you can bet there’s far more to the story.  Certainly the non-photosynthetic Monotropa needs what pine photosynthesis makes—complex carbon compounds, mostly sugars, and the pine conceivably needs help from the fungus middleman, if not from the Monotropa itself, to extract phosphorus from its dreadful soil and its organic detritus.  Who’s benefiting when and who’s getting ripped off needs more radioactive research on all three partners.  Three-way symbioses are becoming fashionable!

Mycorrhizae happen in 80-90% of all plants, but there are probably not too many cases where the fungal partner spoons sugar to its root partner.   Well, to one of its root partners, in this case, the fungus acting sort of a biological Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (pine) and giving to the poor (Monotropa).  I wonder if Monotropa is in Sherwood Forest.

Answer: Yes, Friar Tuck marveled at Monotropa.  See the 2nd paragraph, 6-7 lines up from the bottom. CLICK

(I like UK connections in the blog as a nod to our long-standing British blog friend Mary.)

The UK Monotropa underscores a bizarre distribution.  Monotropa is as widespread as it is small. There are only two species, yet Monotropa spans almost all of North America, much of South America, and is in Europe and Asia.  The genus used to be bigger, but DNA has broken up many a traditional assemblage!  (Such as reptiles, to the dismay of many, but wrong blog.  Don’t ask.)

These plants are primo examples of convergent evolution, that is, evolution of similarities among unrelated organisms. Many plants in other families are parasitic, and many have gone the no-chlorophyll route. These include the broomrapes, beach drops, squaw roots, and oodles of others.  I’ve encountered the number 400 species of no-chlorophyll fungus-dependent plant species.  This is no big surprise, given that most plants have symbiotic root fungi (mycorrhizae)—some just take it to the limit.  Here is a fun relevant link in the world’s best plant web site.  Click to visit my hero Wayne Armstrong who does community college botany right.

Indian Pipe pollination merits a quick closing remark.  You don’t see these plants often—they are ephemeral, environmentally fussy, and, well, hard to spot.  This raises questions of pollination, which botanists have addressed in recent years.  Often isolated species are self-pollinated for obvious reasons, but today’s plants need to exchange pollen with others.   And you might expect spotty species to benefit from a broad array of pollinators, but nope, just bumblebees insofar as known, pinching the environmental scope of the Monotropas.  Given their huge geographic range, though, they can’t be too imperiled.  Still, you get the feeling that— just like many other scrub species–as the scrub patches shrink as subdivisions grow, minimal viable thresholds may apply, and species may evaporate from small sites consequently.  You can’t count on postage-stamp preserves to save the day.

 
19 Comments

Posted by on January 9, 2015 in Monotropa

 

Tags:

Parasites of Parasites of Parasites (well, sorta) and Red-Bays

Red-Bay   Persea borbonia

Swamp-Bay  P. palustris

Silk-Bay P.  humilis (P. borbonia var. humilis)

Lauraceae

In plant groups with names resembling culinary spices, watch out for nomenclatural confusion.   And when you encounter a species complex where different taxonomists define species differently, shun fool’s arguments.  Not all plant groups have studied textbook definitions of species.   I have no interest in sorting out, pontificating upon, or quibbling over the controversial details of Persea taxonomy and naming.   A little relevant data appears at the end of the post under Notes.   Species complexes can easily generate arbitrary, semi-informed, overly specific pseudo-authoritative classification pronouncements.

Just for sloppy convenience, I’m using the term red-bay to cover all three locally native Persea species.

Persea borbonia (by John Bradford)

Persea borbonia (by John Bradford)

Laurel Wilt Disease, an exotic fungus coming with an Asian ambrosia beetle, has since 2002 marched southward from a foothold Georgia, now spanning the length of Florida to menace our red-bays, avacados, and possibly additional related species.   Because the Internet is loaded with info on this, we’ll move on summarily, providing a link.  Ambrosia beetles are not a genetically cohesive group, but rather an ecological lifestyle association:  they have specialized organs to carry fungal spores into the tunnels they bore into trunks and branches (look for telltale dangling strings of sawdust).  The fungus grows lining the burrow, and the beetle feeds on it.  The fungus clogs the plant plumbing and wilts the plant.

Let’s shift to other pests.  Galls on the leaf blades of all three local Persea species are so commonplace and conspicuous they aid in spotting the plants.  The galls come from the egg-laying of tiny red-bay psyllids, bewilderingly named Trioza magnolia, apparently due to old-time confusion between red-bays and sweet-bay magnolias. (See Notes below.  The bug does not bug magnolias).  Psyllids are small hemipteran sucking insects related to aphids and cicadas.  The nymphs mature under the deformed red-bay leaf margins, where the confined little pests have a waste disposal problem.  Not wishing to foul their own nest, they coat their waste in waxy balls and leave it there.    The nymphs are easy to find, to the benefit of a host of predators.

The galls are ugly, but not to a psyllid.

The galls are ugly, but not to a psyllid.

Psyllids, “plant-lice,” are masters of biological funny business.   They are juice-sucking plant parasites and at the same time are hosts to their own internal “parasites” and symbionts.   Psyllids house bacteria, and the 3-way psyllid-bacterium-hostplant relationships can become complex.    The galls are the tip of the lice-berg.   The psyllid with it sucking mouthparts injects bacteria into the host plant, where the bacteria can cause disease, and presumably can transmit to other psyllids, although the details of all the dynamics need research.   DNA technology will help.

Symbiotic bacteria can live inside the psyllid’s cells, almost as cell components.  Such bacteria have some of the briefest genetic codes known to cellular biology.  The bacteria are not mere parasites; they give back, including essential nutrients, and bacterial toxins useful to the psyllids for defense from all those varmints who hunt them (see above).  The bacterial toxins have stirred interest as antitumor agents for human medicine, and perhaps more promising, the insect-bacterial interdependence reveals an Achilles heel for potential psyllid disruption. In agriculture, they are quite the little troublemakers.

Wouldn’t it be something if those toxin-spewing psyllid-borne bacteria participate in the host shrub’s ecological relationships?     Bacteria introduced via psyllids move across grafts in the plant’s phloem.    Parasitic love vine (related to red-bay in the cinnamon family) invades its victim’s phloem.   Conceivably then, the psyllid bacteria could move from insect to red-bay phloem and onward to love vine phloem?…and there impair the parasitic vine, protecting the red-bay?  Any chance psyllid-infested red-bays are comparatively resistant to love vine attack?   Guilty, pure imagination.

Persea borbonia flowers (by John Bradford). (Flower parts in 3's are not common in Dicots, although characteristic of Lauraceae.)

Persea borbonia flowers (by John Bradford). (Flower parts in 3’s are not common in Dicots, although characteristic of Lauraceae.)

Red-bays have broad soil tolerances thanks no doubt in part to their root antibiotic called borbonol, which confers resistance to some fungal (Oomycete) rots. The crushed leaves are distinctively stinky and probably toxic, yet used a little for culinary flavoring.   Anything bioactive and smelly automatically has history in human medicine.  Red-bays have too many historic uses to list.  Name an ailment.  An interesting application, however, is as sort of folk smelling salts to counter unconsciousness.   Maybe that would help in some in my classes.

Red-bay has mixed relationships with butterflies.   The foliage murders eastern tiger swallowtail larvae, and yet is the chief larval host for the palamedes swallowtail butterfly, which probably derives nasty stuff from the leaf tissue to the butterfly’s defensive benefit.

Before quittin’ a word on the fruit.  It is a little weird, a drupe (stone fruit) about the size of a marble  and black or dark blue sitting on a cup (the calyx) like a golf ball on a tee.  Perhaps more noticeable and important farther north, the fruit persists into the autumn or winter, providing late-season wildlife food.    Must be one mighty fine fruit, as we like the fruit of one closely related species, Persea americana, in our guacamole.

The fruits (by John Bradford)

The fruits (by John Bradford)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Notes:

The native plants called “bays” are not the bay (laurel) leaves of the kitchen, although today’s plants and bay laurel (Laurus nobilis) all belong to the big spicy cinnamon family (Lauraceae) along with another local native favorite, lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), and more.  Sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) is in the magnolia family (Magnoliaceae), not particularly closely related to any of the other “bays” of today, although it too has spicy foliage.  Bay-rum (Pimenta racemosa) is in the Eucalyptus family (Myrtaceae), along with allspice (Pimenta dioica), which in turn is not related to the so-called Carolina allspice (Calycanthus floridus, Calycanthaceae).    See what I mean about kitchen names getting tangled?
Persea is a large genus.  Most modern taxonomists variably interpret the local representatives as two or as three species, although some have seen merely variants of a single species, and others have diced the complex into even more species.  There’s no single “correct” answer.   My favorite general go-to guide on North American taxonomy, Flora North America, recognizes three species as follow:
  1. Red-Bay, Persea borbonia, abundant in our counties, in varied habitats, often hammocks, or coastal dunes, with the hairs on twigs and leaf undersides pressed to the leaf surface and the leaf blades often over 8 cm long. Alternatively interpretable as a mere variant of P. borbonia, if accepted as a separate species,   2. Silk-Bay, Persea humilis (or P. borbonia var. humilis)  has more abundant, silkier hairs especially on the leaf underside, and shorter leaf blades on average.  Silk-Bay is mostly a scrub species and, although abundant in Florida, is absent or nearly so from the area our blog covers.
  2. Swamp-Bay, Persea, palustris, has a broad distribution in our area and beyond in diverse habitats from swamps to woodlands. It differs from the others by kinky hairs jutting out from the twig and leaf surfaces (as opposed to pressed to the surfaces).
Not native to Florida, Persea americana is avocado.
 
4 Comments

Posted by on January 3, 2015 in Red-Bay

 

Tags: ,

Cypress Knees – What Are They Good For? (Absolutely Nothing?)

Note added in 2020:   The original version of this post dates back a few years.   It has been updated repeatedly due to new thoughts and new information.  If you are looking for a definitive proven answer on the adaptive significance of cypress knees,  not here.  Or not yet.

If you’d like a short answer, personally I strongly suspect the knees allow the living tissues of the root to come up for air, providing a large surface area for the vascular cambium and more importantly the sugar-pumping (and possibly storing during the leafless season) phloem,   like surface pumping stations along a pipeline.   That is by far my preferred hypothesis, and I’m trying every low-tech way to test it I can.   But much fun stuff to discuss, read on…

Observations, speculations, interpretations and questions about cypress knees date back about as far as botanical writing concerning the Southeastern U.S.    And beyond:

Any interpretation of the knees must extend beyond Taxodium distichum in and near the Southern U.S.   Other Taxodiaceae/Cupressaceae, including Asian representatives, can form knees.   Whatever functions the knees serve must pertain broadly in time, space, and related species.

It is surprising, after centuries of interest, how much interpretation is based on field observation, and how little hard data exist on knee anatomy, cellular structure, and physiology.  Not easy to study, let alone to monitor the growth of woody glaciers.   As field equipment becomes smaller, less expensive, and accessible, we may see a new development of data to help settle questions.    The phloem physiology of Taxodium roots and knees has a target on it.

And while in the realm of ifs, and, and buts,  it may be worthwhile to mention that multiple functions are possible, even if we prefer one adaptation as “the” main driving force behind knee evolution.    One function does not necessarily preclude others.    And also conceivable is no particular function.

A wonderful summary of what came before and an in-depth new analysis  is by H. S. Lanborn in the American Naturalist 1890.    There seems to have been a flurry of interest in late 19th Century botany.   Interestingly, after airing the evidence thoroughly, including the common observation that knees tend to form where aeration is needed, Lanborn disfavored the usual interpretation of cypress knees as air-exchangers  in preference for a pair of alternative hypotheses….that the knees function primarily to brace the trees against root failure during storms and to catch floating debris, which would add weight on top of the root system.

taxodium lamborn

Lanborn drew the diagram above, showing how he felt the knees with their broad bases reinforced the roots (root B stronger than root A).   Lanborn recognized that the knees rise  far higher than needed to serve as root reinforcements, which led him to the secondary hypothesis of the pegs as flotsam-catchers.    The brace-flotsam interpretation thus has a fundamental problem by invoking two functions.

Long before and after Lanborn, the conventional interpretation of the knees is as ventilation devices.  Cypress roots run horizontally through anoxic mud and water and thus need air.   Other wetland plants have aerenchyma tissue allowing gas exchange between deep roots and the soil surface (although problematically such tissue is unknown in Bald Cypress). Despite tilting away from ventilation, Lanborn and others, including me, agree that knee formation seems to correlate (here’s a chance for quantified research) with growth where roots would otherwise be smothered under water or anoxic mud.  Assuming this correlation stands up to systematic study,  it  is in itself evidence for a role in gas exchange somehow.  After all, the knees are called “pneumatophores.”

As Lanborn quoted an earlier observer:

“It seems likely, therefore, that some process connected with the exposure of the sap to the air takes place in these protuberances.”

Taxodium cut off

Solid wood.   (I did not cut the knee.)

The ventilation  concept has complications.    At first glance, it is easy to suspect the knees are the above-water snorkels to a generalized root aeration system.   The knees are wood with no apparent ductwork.  The water-conducting cells are tracheids, which have a membrane (pair of adjacent cellulose cell walls) blocking the passageways (pits) from cell to cell.  The pit membranes are not air-tight but there are millions of them in the path of the gas exchange. But are the knees completely  air-tight? Not necessarily.

First of all, aging knees can become hollow with age, obviously then allowing air to pass readily to the base of an older decaying knee.  Further, a recent study shows  increased oxygen in Taxodium roots near the bases of exposed knees as opposed to under submerged knees.   CLICK for an abstract. Gases do diffuse in wood or be dissolved in water or phloem sap, but very slowly, and remember, the knees are a long distance from the young growing feeder roots, and the water movement in the wood, at least when the tree is active with foliage present, is in the wrong direction.

This study you just clicked  contradicts earlier research where aeration was not in evidence. The recent positive results are based on needle-drawn air samples from root wood near the knee bases.   The experiments dug and cut free knees with portions of root attached and transported the knees to a lab, then studied the knees in an aquarium many hours later under varied water  depths.     The experimental technique complicates interpretation of the results:

Most importantly, root xylem under natural conditions usually has negative pressure, “suction,”  as transpiration pulls  water and any dissolved oxygen inward to the trunk and up the tree, away from the feeder roots.  The instant the roots are severed  the negative pressure is eliminated,  and any related gas dynamics are lost, making it tough to know what to make of oxygen levels in such depressurized dying roots.

Further, it is not clear if the needle-drawn air samples were consistent in origin, and each from sapwood, heartwood, wood rays, or pith.     Root damage and changing conditions could elicit a hormonal response with metabolic consequences.    It was not clear if the knees used were solid, partly decayed, or even hollow (probably not, but their structural condition matters).      It was also unclear if oxygen entry was via wood, or alternatively along the porous bark we’ll return to momentarily.   Maybe even from air trapped in the bark during transport to the lab.

cypress knees riverben jb

By John Bradford

Despite all  these worries,  my hunch is to agree that some oxygen may well reach the base of the knee and attached adjacent root.     But then a bigger question:  exactly what living tissue (wood is mostly non-living), and where does the oxygen serve?     Perhaps oxygen makes its way along the length of that woody root snaking through the mud in ways not adequately explained anatomically, and  then somehow ventilates the system.   The concept of effective long-distance air movement in the wood is problematic.

But something else moves the length of the root through known channels under pressure and requires oxygenation: the phloem sap. So maybe the oxygen entering the knee (and possibly reaching adjacent roots) is most important at and near the knee, not to ventilate the root, but rather as a periodic surface-oxygenating rejuvenation station for the phloem, a pumping station.

There is a vague and inchoate hint of this as far back as Lanborn.  Review the quote dating to 1879 above.  It does not refer to aerating the root, but rather to exposing the sap to the air.    The root system pumps sugary phloem sap all the way from the leaves out to the tips of the tiny feeder roots.    This requires oxygen.    Oxygen is in short supply under that water and wet mud.    Knees rising periodically and exposing the phloem (and associated cambium) at the knee surface to a periodic breath of fresh air may keep the sap flowing.

Knees often form on arched roots.

Knees often form on arched roots.

 

taxodium-n-jup-fltwods

A photo my dent1st would love (exposed roots).   This big old knee, and many other like it, does not say “snorkel” to me.  It says “root hub.”  It sure could be a place where radiating roots get a dose of life-giving gas exchange.

The phloem is a continuous living sleeve covering the entire root.    It has two layers:  a soft spongy outer dead layer (bark) covering the living breathing pressurized inner layer where the sugary sap flows.   Just under that is the likewise living vascular cambium responsible for growth in diameter, and all this exterior to the wood.    Think of the wood as a wire and the phloem/cambium as the plastic insulation covering the copper.

Air entering the knee would contact and presumably benefit the phloem immediately.    The knees has a large surface area potentially exposing a lot of phloem and cambium to a lot of air,  a giant gill, with no need to postulate gas exchange through dead wood under negative pressure in the wrong direction.

This would explain why the knees rise so high…to provide a big exposed surface.   This fits with the acknowledged prevalence of knees in situations  where oxygenation is needed.    And localized gas exchange at and near the knee is consistent with the recent observations of oxygen getting into the knees and adjacent roots, diffusing through wood and/or  through the porous bark, and maybe even carried along as dissolved oxygen in the reinvigorated outbound phloem sap.

Do the knees give the otherwise submerged cambium and phloem a metabolic shot in the arm?

 

Taxodium on shore

Knees on shore

To continue with the phloem,  the trees are leafy much of the year, corresponding more or less to the wet season, and “bald” leafless during more or less the winter months and dry season, although the wet-leafy/dry-bakd correspondence is not exact.    In any case, the tree goes months with no photosynthesis.   No sugars being made.  What does it do about that?    In line with the idea that the knees are basically sugar movers, maybe they are in the moving and storage business, serving as sugar reserves, sort of like our livers, in between the intermittently sugar-producing leaves and the always-sugar-needing roots.  I am trying to find a way to detect sucrose storage in the knees.   A bloof glucoe meter may come in handy although it tests for glucos not sucrose,   And of coruse, you do not go to wild areas and start cutting of knees!    In the mod 80s biologist Clair Brown used an iodine test to check for starch in cut-off knees, and they were positive. Starch is stored sugar, so you may say her results were not far apart from the present ypothesis. Funny how observations converge.

 

Even so, I plan to see this idea through ethically and effectively.

There have been additional knee proposals.  Here are some:

  1. Serve as variable-height  launchpads for tufts of feeder roots.   The idea here is that the water levels rise and fall during the very long life of a bald cypress.  As the water level fluctuates small feeder roots might branch off the trunks and knees to exploit the oxygen-rich water at the water surface.    I have not seen such tufts personally, although supportive observations are reported.  I wonder why so many trees would make so many knees not apparently engaged in this way, seemingly an expensive investment in a rare contingency.  I  wonder similarly if the cluster of knees could make enough of a contribution to justify the substantial investment in those big woody  knees.    If the knee does sprout a tuft of feeder roots in the water  allowing nutritional supplementation (from water?)  this input is separated physically from the exponentially greater mass of feeder roots at the distal end of the root system.   The water and dissolved nutrient input from knee-roots would go into the xylem and would be pulled to the trunk by the inward/upward direction of the transpirational xylem stream, feeding the above-ground tree, not the distal root system.   Readers interested in exploring this intriguing hypothesis should consult, Stahle, D. et al. Quat. Sci. Rev. 34:  7. 2012.
  2. Allow methane to escape. (Here is some info on methane release)
  3. Rise into stumps and extract nutrients (No evidence and no apparent adaptation to this purpose, and knees generally encountered rising into thin air.)
  4. Food storage (no traction)
  5. Will grow into new trees (no)
  6. No function, merely tumors or burls. (See below)
  7. Giant thorns.  (See below)

IMG_7743

Cypress knees are often not single units, but rather commonly clustered, hinting that whatever “set off” a knee kicked off multiple knees in one fell swoop.  Some are branched, or are the fusion of adjacent knees creating a branched appearance.  Often the knees start from the high point of looping roots, as if a giant knee formed on top of the St. Louis Arch (photo above).

knee cluster

The could be burls, reaction wood,  hormonal aberrations, or the results of injury.  Interestingly,  Bald Cypress trunks will grow a burl at points of abrasive contact.   The knees are so widespread and so abundant,  their existence as mere burls or growth aberrations is not an appealing hypothesis.

 

IMG_5425

Don’t trip over those “knees.” This painting is by Brian Regal (in The Evolution and Extinctions of the Dinosaurs by D. Eastovsky and D. Weishamel. 1996) . This is based on the Triassic Chinle Formation in Arizona, probably earlier than the appearance of Taxodium, although maybe not before its similar ancestors.)

 

An intriguing if far-fetched possibility is maybe the knees block large herbivores.   (They sure block canoes.) Even if unlikely, fun to envision.  Members of the Taxodiaceae (or Cupressaceae) date back to dinosaurs, some of them hunky hungry herbivores.   More recently and locally, Mastodons ate Bald Cypress in massive quantities.  In the Aucilla River in the Florida Panhandle remain to this day literally truckloads, tons, of preserved Mastodon dung.  Guess what it is made of mostly:  Bald Cypress twigs.

 

DUNG

Yep—that’s it. 12,000 years old yet still fresh. (Photo from UF Museum of Natural History)

 

Cypress knees in creek 2

 

Notes:

Newsom, L.A., and M. C. Mihlbachler. Mastodons (Mammut americanum) Diet Foraging Patterns Based on Analysis of Dung Deposits.  Springer. 2006.

 

 
15 Comments

Posted by on December 29, 2014 in Bald Cypress

 

Tags: , ,

Australian-Pine, Perfect for a Pine Box

Casuarina

(Casuarina equisitifolia, C. glauca, C. cunninghamiana)

caz-you-RINE-ah (alternatively in some places caz-you-REEN-ah)

Casuarinaceae

Casuarina at Jupiter Inlet, Florida

Casuarina at Jupiter Inlet, Florida

A problem with the human mind is we categorize things.  You might say we put things in a box with a label on top, and then otherwise ignore the contents. So today let’s think inside the box.

Perhaps other native plant enthusiasts share my lazy tendency to tag certain species as invasive exotics, and then fail to give them much further thought.  But when we behave that way we overlook much of our green environment.

Today’s day-after-Christmas tree is Australian-pine, species of Casuarina, not one, but three in Florida. The most common and widespread is Casuarina equisetifolia.  The name Australian-pine is a misnomer.  The trees are not related to pines and are not 100% Australian. Altogether there are perhaps 50-some species of Casuarina, depending on how you define its borders.  (Recent studies have divided an older broad genus into multiple smaller genera of Casuarinaceae.)  They are primarily Australian, although Casuarina equisitifolia lives naturally (?) also in Southeast Asia and on some Pacific islands.  Ancient peoples in boats obscured inconsiderately the precise natural origins, and the tree goes forth and multiplies unaided with small windblown fruits.

Casuarina foliage (by john Bradford)

Casuarina foliage (by John Bradford)

The Australian-pine introduction to formal botany dates to the 17th century blind botanical genius George Rumphius on the Indonesian island of Amboina.  Rumphius referred to our tree as casuaris-boom, mentioning resemblance between patterns in the wood and plumage of the cassowary bird.

No need to devote much space to Casuarina as an invasive exotic. That’s the red label already on the box, and anyone wishing more on that will find an exotic invasion of documentation elsewhere on the Internet. How Casuarina arrived in Florida is a fair question.  Its Florida roots go back at least as far as 1887, bringing to mind the Reasoner Brothers Royal Palm Nursery established in 1881, although I’m not sure they sold it.  The tree undoubtedly had been in the West Indies well before the 19th Century, and as already mentioned, the wafer fruits flutter at will over the bounding main.

Casuarina clusters of immature bracts (specialized leaves) with fruits hidden among the bracts (by John Bradford).  The

Casuarina clusters of immature bracts (specialized leaves) with fruits hidden among the bracts (by John Bradford). The “needles” are branchlets.

Casuarinas do look like pine trees, and some 19th century botanists took them to be a missing link between the conifers and the flowering plants.  They are not conifers at all, and are 100% flowering plants.  How experts mistakenly allied our trees with conifers is puzzling as it doesn’t take much examination to spot the similarities between conifers and Australian-pines as superficial, not even involving the same parts. What look like pine needles are skinny green branches.  And what look like pine cones are specialized hardened leaves clustered with the fruits.  In short we have a beautiful example of convergent evolution, just like the marsupials of Australia exemplify convergent evolution with placental mammals in the rest of the world.

Mature, opened, bract cluster.  The fruits have blown from the apparent openings.  This cluster is from the tree at Jupiter Inlet.

Mature, opened, bract cluster. The fruits have blown from the apparent openings. This cluster is from the tree at Jupiter Inlet.

Just like a true pine tree, an Australian-pine can thrive in nasty harsh environments, such as Florida beaches and dunes. Contributing to their ability to invade (or shade, depending on your perspective) are nitrogen-fixing root nodules, something we more famously associate with legumes.  (A few local non-legumes have this ability.)

That perspective thing sure pollutes issues doesn’t it?  Casuarina is fundamentally an unwelcome guest, there is no question.  It doesn’t take much living in Florida to see the destruction. Beyond displacement of the native flora and fauna, btw,  the pollen contributes to allergies.  But where I used to live in the Caribbean the Australian pines were valuable shade trees, and I used to enjoy beer, French fries, and silver sands at the shady Casuarina resort. (Maybe sniffling a little.)

So acknowledging the dark side, let’s flip the coin. A species able to grow ten feet a year in a salty sandbox deserves a second look.  Iconic Florida botanist Julia Morton thought they were pretty good barbecue fuel, and the abundant trees are a guilt free source of mulch wood chips, although the chips may inhibit the growth of other plants.   (I have used them with no obvious calamity so far.)  The world abounds in inferior salty soil, limited water, and the need for wood and green coverage.  The trees cover mine tailings and stabilize shifting sand.  In India Casuarina plantations yield fuel after only 5-7 years, and the hard fine-grained wood supplies rough construction, tool handles, ores, and docks.

In places I’ve worked gremlins have posted signs above the copy machines urging staff to save the forest by restraint with copier paper.  Well sure, I’m all for saving the forest and the office supplies budget. So here’s a related thought: maybe Caz is not 100% foe. A commercial source of paper pulp where nothing else grows and where people need industrial jobs may be less demonic than the warning on Pandora’s label.

Casuarina with a haircut

Casuarina with a haircut

 
8 Comments

Posted by on December 26, 2014 in Casuarina

 

Tags:

Psilotum Looks Like a Fossil

Psilotum, Whisk-Fern

(Psilotum is not a fern.   It belongs to an informal group known as “fern allies.”)

Psilotum nudum (sigh-LOW-tum NEW-dum)

Psilotaceae

Today John and George continued exploring Seabranch State Park near Hobe Sound, Florida. Our shoes got wet in the eastern margin of the park in a low, wet, swampy, shadowy, ferny, prehistoric forest.  My unscientific rule of thumb is: the swampier the woods, the more primitive it be.  The swampy lands in Seabranch look like a museum dinosaur diorama with ferns taller than a person, tree trunks festooned with dangly mossy things, and a lush carpet of primordial ooze only a salamander might love.  Now I do want to push the primitive thing too hard, because this is an imagination venture (please no condescending e-mails explaining profoundly that the local swamp is not actually primitive).  Still, a swamp is a venue to see plants we think of as primitive, if you define “primitive” as representing a particularly ancient plant group.

The Seabranch swamp is a wonderland of liverworts, which are about as primitive as a land plant can be, but we will defer those until another day.  Mosses are likewise ancient, ferns are too, bald cypress is no evolutionary spring chicken, and you get the idea.  We are glancing back to plant groups in rough terms four times older than flowering plants and 400 times older than humans.

Today’s encounters take the imagination back 400 million years to the early Devonian Period.  Looking down from space a modern alien wouldn’t recognize the Devonian Earth.  Europe and Asia were a single continent.  So were Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica.  And, creeping forth from the ancient seas, plants had only recently invaded the land.

Despite the passage of almost half a billion years, you might be surprised how much we know about the early land plants thanks to exquisite fossils preserving anatomical details over the eons.  The most famous Devonian plant fossil site is called the Rhynie chert near Aberdeen, Scotland where an entire swamp is so perfectly mineralized it looks like a stone-wizard waved his magic wand just yesterday.

Those ancient plants had distinctive evenly forked Y-shaped branching, in contrast with the uneven branching patterns characteristic of modern stems. They had no roots, although underground rhizomes were fashionable. As remains true of modern ferns and the so-called fern allies, the ancient land plants reproduced by spores rather than by flowers, fruits, and seeds.  The spore cases were either on the tips are on the sides of the stems. (A spore differs from a seed in many ways, principally by being merely a single cell.)

Below are a couple of examples of plants we know from the Devonian fossils:

Cooksonia, on left fossil approx. 400 million years old, and on the right a reconstruction.   Note the Y-shaped branching, and the spore cases (resembling buttons).

Cooksonia, on left fossil approx. 400 million years old, and on the right a reconstruction. Note the Y-shaped branching, and the spore cases (resembling buttons).  From reflexions.ulg.be

Wouldn’t it be amazing if a plant like that walked the earth in 2015? A botanical pre-dinosaur!  Well, you know where I’m going with this:  it lives in the Seabranch State Park “Rhynie forest.”

Cooksonia back from the Devonian?  No:  Psilotum from Seabranch State Park.

Cooksonia back from the Devonian 400 million years ago? No: Psilotum from Seabranch State Park right now.

Some textbooks call the plant whisk-fern, actual people call it Psilotum. It would’ve been comfortably at home in the Rhynie chert. Psilotum has no flowers, fruits, or seeds. The branching is evenly Y-shaped in the prehistoric fashion, and the spores occupy little pillboxes along the side of the stem.  It looks nothing like a modern plant; instead, it looks like the ancient fossils.

Psilotum by John Bradford.  The yellowish Bbs on the stem are spore cases.

Psilotum by John Bradford. The yellowish BBs on the stem are spore cases.

Life is never straightforward. DNA and other studies undermine the idea of Psilotum as a diehard from Devonian times.  DNA places it among the ferns so in contemporary classifications it is one.   So why a plant that looks like it’s straight out of Rhynie doesn’t show exactly the expected relationships is a wee conundrum for future botanists.  In the meantime, in my mind it jumped right out of the rocks.

Spore case

Spore case

Another spore case, rightside-up

Another spore case, rightside-up

If you’re wondering about spores, by the way, as in ferns and other fern allies, and certainly also in the prehistoric land plants, they don’t germinate like a seed and replicate the parent plant. In Psilotum the spores germinate into a tiny completely underground generation living off of subterranean fungal symbiosis.  The baby Psilotum, technically called the gametophyte (gam-EET-oh-fight), looks like a root without the rest of the plant. You’ll never see one.  But it’s not so hard to find the parent Psilotums hanging out of the broken leaf bases on cabbage palm, or occasionally on moist hummock in the swamp.  And there is even an easier way to visit Jurassic Park. These plants are often weeds and plant nursery flowerpots.

Psilotum hanging out of trees

Psilotum hanging out of trees

 
9 Comments

Posted by on December 19, 2014 in Psilotum, Whisk Fern

 

Tags:

Border Rush

Border-Rush

(If you wound up at Treasure Coast “Natives” in an article on border rush, out of interest in immigration policy, wrong blog)

Juncus marginatus and kindred species

Juncaceae

Some plant families don’t get the attention they deserve. Yesterday marked the end of my fall term botanical field trip class, and to cap it off we circumnavigated the pond by the Palm Beach State College plant nursery.  A few steps around the shore revealed three species of rushes, about half the species hereabouts.  We saw border rush, needle pod rush, and the one I like to say: big head rush.  Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh:  Yakaloticus megacephalus var. tiltrightiana.

Rushes are the Juncaceae (junk-ACE-ee-ee), a relatively small family of maybe just 300 species around the world, more prolific in cooler climates than in the tropics.  Florida has a big handful, mostly in the genus Juncus plus a toehold by the genus Luzula.

Big Head Rush

Big Head Rush

Rushes, sedges, and grasses have long recognized as close allies.  I think it’s fair to portray the traditional view as sedges and grasses married, with the rushes a more primitive cousin.  However, surprise, DNA shows the rushes and the sedges to be the natural couple, and the grasses as the third wheel.

Big differences in the little flowers.  The rushes of the only ones of the trio to have flowers with sepals and petals.  (Some sedges have lame excuses for these.)  And further, unlike the single-seed grain-type fruits (achenes) of grasses and sedges, rushes uniquely have a woody capsule able to split open and release multiple seeds, often in vast numbers.

Border Rush pods (by John Bradford)

Border Rush pods (by John Bradford)

Wind is the pollinator for all three families, with exceptions.  As one insect-pollinated exception, Florida native plant enthusiasts enjoy the pretty painted sedges Rhynchospora colorata and relatives.  When I was younger these went by the name Dichromena, which I just like.  Unlike most sedges, the painted sedges have leaves beneath the tiny flowers either partially or completely white, mimicking petals and thus attracting 6-legged pollinators.

Pained sedge in Florida with white bracts around the smaller flowers

Painted sedge in Florida with white bracts around the smaller flowers

Why would I bother contaminating a post on poor under-valued rushes with insect-pollinated sedges?  Answer: rushes do essentially the same thing (with slightly different organs putting on the white), in Asia.  The insect-pollinated Juncus allioides looks much like our local painted sedges.  Botanists studying that Asian species suspect insect-pollination in rushes to be more fundamental and widespread than usually perceived.  And here’s why.  We know already how rushes have sepals and petals.  The purposes of these organs is to attract insects, so why do wind-pollinated rushes have them?  (Why do occasional human babies have tails?)   In rushes the petals are tiny and ineffective for as bug-lures.  They must be left over from insect-pollinated ancestors with bigger showier petals.  In other words, rush petals and human tails are vestigial.

Juncus allioides, insect-pollinated and white-topped, in Asia.  Photo by Susan Kelley, from Flora north america.

Juncus allioides, insect-pollinated and white-topped, in Asia. Photo by Susan Kelley, from Flora North America.

And there’s more:  In the rushes the pollen grains cling together in clumps of four known as tetrads.  This makes sense in an insect-pollinated flower where one Fed-Bug delivery drops off four pollen grains, but tetrads are rare in wind-pollinated flowers where lightweight, separate grains are obviously optimal.  Again, tetrads apparently vestigial.  So let’s all keep our eyes open for more insect pollination in rushes.

Weirdness Alert!  Stop and think about all that for a second, Juncus allioides shows doubly flip-flopped evolution.  Start with an insect-pollinated ancestor great granddaddy rush, and turn it wind-pollinated like most modern rushes, here’s flip-flop #1.  Then have a species go back to insect pollination, there’s the flop.

Border Rush in flower (by JB)

Border Rush in flower (by JB)

Speaking of oddball reproduction, many plants sprout among their flowers baby plantlets called bulbils.  (Pups in garden parlance.)  These clones of the parent plant back up or even replace the sexual flowers.  Rushes occasionally make bulbils.  As an extreme for instance, Juncus pelocarpus has a southern variant formerly called Juncus abortivus, presumably because it’s flowers abort to make way for bulbils.  Our own border rush seems to sport bulbils, although it might be a good idea to do dissect a few to see if the emerging babies are bulbils or, alternatively, seeds germinating inside the fruit while still in the mama plant.  I’m betting on bulbils.

Border rush with apparent bulbils sprouting on the parent plant

Rushes have some human history.  Around the world they yield fibers (Juncus textilis) used for cords, nets, basketry, and mats, including the beautiful tatami mats of Japan.

Apocalypse survivors may sleep on rush mats, catch fish with Juncus nets, and light their smelly hovels with rushlights.  Historically in Europe, especially the U.K., people of meager means—or the budget minded—made rushlights using soft rush, found in England, in Florida, and vastly far beyond.  (In fact the same species is the one in the Japanese t-mats.)  To make a rushlight you harvest soft rush, peel off most of the skin, dry it, soak it in kitchen grease, and fire up an inexpensive candle.  These were mounted in rushlight holders, which now are collectors items and museum pieces.  Soft rush is abundant in the U.K., and I’m hoping our British blog friend Mary Hart is reading this and may perhaps even comment.  Not too many species shared between Palm Beach County and Worcester (go Wolves!) in Worcestershire.

Rushlight (see link in text)

Rushlight (see link in text)

(Here is a great link to rushlights, and the source of the photo I stole.)

This post is getting too long so we better rush to wrap it up, and to help with that here is Aesop with rushlight wisdom, oh so apropos to us blog writers as we self-proclaim our value as unvetted, unedited, uncorrected un-competitive luminaries:

 A Rushlight that had grown fat and saucy with too much grease, boasted one evening before a large company that it shone brighter than sun, moon and all the stars.  At that moment, a puff of wind came and blew it out.  One who lighted it again said, “Shine on, friend Rushlight, and hold your tongue; the lights of heaven are never blown out.

———————————————————————————-

Notes:

Notes:

Who took today’s pictures?

For some photos, I do not recall who took what.   They are from the catacombs.   If it is sharp and vibrant, probably John.  Out of focus, me.

For the gardeners:

Big Twister

Not rushes:

Bulrush (Schoenplectus, and other sedges, and Typha)

CatTails (Typha species)

Spikerush (Eleocharis species, sedges)

Scouring Rush (Equisetum species, “Fern Allies”)

Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus)

Species you might find in our haunts, quickie notes:

(I am not interested in taxonomic/geographic/nomenclatural quibbles.  These topics are not of much interest here and now.  Quibblers:  git yer own pretentious dang blog):

Juncus effusus.  Soft Rush.  Worldwide. Looks substantially different from the other local Juncus species; resembles a Bulrush at a glance

Juncus marginatus.  Border Rush.  The most abundant species locally, flower heads small, irregular, and messy, not globose.  Leaves not septate.

Juncus megacephalus.  Big Head Rush.  Common, flowers heads big and globose.  Leaves septate.

Juncus paludosus.  A recently named species restricted to Florida, resembling J. polycephalus.

Juncus polycephalus.  Many Head Rush.  Many small globose heads, marginal geographically to us

Juncus repens.  Often submersed, flat, different from the others.  A popular aquarium species.

Juncus scirpoides.  Needlepod Rush.  Common.  Flower heads half-globose, a little messy.  Leaves septate.

Needlepod Rush

Needlepod Rush

 
4 Comments

Posted by on December 12, 2014 in Border Rush

 

Tags:

How Do Puffball Spores Resemble the National Debt?

Gasteromycetes

(Varied Fungi)

Today the heavenly weather lured John and George into Seabranch State Park near Hobe Sound, Florida.  The scrubby flatwoods openings were gardens of Golden Asters, with tiny mystery bungee-larvae nestled in their flowering heads. CLICK for a flashback.

The second-best show was the weird fairyland of wacky fungi known collectively as Gasteromycetes (gassed arrow my seats).   The Gasteromycetes are not a natural evolutionary grouping, yet they share an important feature:  Unlike most of their relatives which launch their spores directly into the breeze, a Gasteromycete usually stores the spores until release time. The name Gasteromycetes means, rather loosely, “stomach fungi,” not because they are good to eat (!) but because they collect spores in their tummies.

Fungal classification is complex and changing rapidly, especially with DNA evidence.   Not the time or place (nor expertise) to delve into it, but there are Gasteromycetes with similar appearances and similar English names not particularly related to each other.  This creates hazards for enthusiasts who feel the best way to enjoy nature is to eat it, as misidentifications can be uncomfortable to fatal.  The best senses to enjoy nature are sight, sound, smell, and touch.  Oh, oops, did I leave out taste?

The ground today was littered with Earth Stars which look more like sea creatures than terrestrial life forms.  As with most fungi, what you see is the reproductive tip of the iceberg while the rest of the fungus conducts organic decay in the sand below. Raindrops hitting the Earth Stars poof the spores out of the pore on top.

Earth Star by John Bradford

Earth Star by John Bradford

Puffballs and Earthballs bubble up above the ground surface to produce a bag of spores, sometimes existing via a pore up top, sometimes not.  Every kid of our generation has stomped’em to conjure a cloud of smelly spore “smoke.”  Most of the puffballs are mycorrhizae.  Mycorrhizae are fungi in a symbiotic relationship with plant roots.  One end of the fungal strand penetrates the oak or pine root while the other end procures nutrients by decay or theft from other plants.

The abundant puffdaddy species today was a species of Scleroderma.  It has a tough skin and a mass of chocolate-colored spores inside, before opening at the top and spilling forth its dust.  By the way, these balls are toxic. Some similar species have spores in the mind-boggling trillions.  Go ahead, count them.

Scleroderma by John Bradford

Scleroderma full of spores by John Bradford

And even weirder Puffball-ish species is called Pisolithus tinctorius.  We didn’t see these in the park today,  but some conveniently inhabit my back yard.  This widespread and well-known fungus has many English names, one of those suitable for a polite blog is Dyer’s Fungus.  Fungi sometimes serve as sources for fabric dyes, and this one makes a dark black dye. I’m no surgeon but if you cut it open in my imagination it resembles some sort of human organ loaded with gallstones.  The innards are pebbled. Each pebble is a mass of spores. At risk of going on a little too long, there’s one more interesting point to make on Pisolithus.  The species in North America favors Pines and Oaks, the dominant trees hereabouts.  But other species in other regions favor species of trees such as Acacias, alien and introduced into Florida for landscape purposes, raising the possibility of inadvertently bringing new species of Pisolithus into our flora.  Sure hope that’s ok with our local Oaks and Pines!

Pisolithus conveniently in hand at my home.  look at those gallstones.

Pisolithus conveniently in hand at my home.  Or is that somebody’s gallbladder?

Last Gasteromycetes of all, not seen today but also plentiful near my domicile, are the Birds Nest Fungi. These decomposers make little splash cups were the “eggs in the nest” are spore masses flung skyward by falling rain. In some species sticky tails on the spore masses to cling to foliage eaten by passing herbivores for manure-aided dispersal.

A Bird's Nest in old mulch by my home.   The "eggs" are spore masses.  They remind me of tiddly winks.

A Bird’s Nest in old mulch by my home. The “eggs” are spore masses. They remind me of Tiddlywinks.

To wind up by going one fun step further, the Cannonball Fungus looks like a tiny birds nest and it likewise masses it spores into packets, but instead of splash power the packets go forth BOOM as itsy bitsycannonballs.  You may enjoy seeing that in this video.  CLICK here for the artillery.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 5, 2014 in Gasteromycetes, Mushrooms, Puffballs

 

Tags: