Biocomplexity Project: A Synthetic Approach to Phytotelmata Communities

Methods Between May and September of 2001, 39 sites were sampled throughout the range of Sarracenia purpurea (see figure). Sites were selected with the help of local authorities to cover the entire known range of Sarracenia. In conducting this survey, we learned a great deal about both the natural and recent history of Sarracenia purpurea. For example: -- In many areas, most Sarracenia purpurea populations have been destroyed at some time, largely through the draining of wetlands. West Virginia and Georgia seem to have been particularly disturbed. In some of these areas, populations of Sarracenia pupurea have been either re-established later or established at sites where they previously did not occur, with stocks from other sites (similar populations have been established in Ireland and a few other areas in Europe). We have tried to avoid these secondarily established populations where possible. -- In the southeastern United States, many populations have been dramatically reduced by recent droughts. Other populations persisted by spreading into disturbed areas such as power-line clearings and roadsides. -- Georgia has almost no populations, so the Alabama and northern Florida populations are disjunct from those farther north. This disjuction has been previously discussed by Rob Naczi and his colleagues, who have suggested that the southern populations are now a distinct species, Sarracenia rosa. -- Many populations are maintained by local fires. Although too-frequent fires may restrict Sarracenia purpurea, many populations across the entire distribution appear to required occasional fires. We attempted to standardize our sample by the flowering phenology of Sarracenia, as new leaves are most frequently produced after flowering and fruiting. We therefore attempted to sample populations 3-4 weeks afater the peak of flowering. This schedule allowed us to sample as our crew moved north from Florida. Hannah Buckley and Jim Cuthbertson collected from most the sites along the eastern U.S. seaboard; Jim and Chris Oakley did most of the fieldwork north of there. Several sites were sampled by other people outside the project, to whom we are very grateful (Ted Johnson, Véronique Tremblay, Lissa Leege, and Peter Scott). At each site, a transect was established across the S. purpurea population and 20 pitchers (each on a different plant) were sampled, resulting in a total of 780 pitchers sampled over the entire range. Each of the leaves themselves were also collected. Environmental variables at the site scale, plant scale, and pitcher scale were recorded. More environmental variables are still to be collected for each site (e.g., temperature and precipitation data). All pitcher samples were sent to Florida State University for analyses; water samples were sent to Mt. Holyoke College. We attempted to quantify the entire community within each leaf using counts of all invertebrate species, protozoan species, and bacterial colony types. Most of these taxa have been preserved for future work.