Page 1
Page | 1
BSc Countryside Management
April 2014
Submitted in part candidature for the degree of B.Sc., Institute of Biological,
Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University.
Does one of the common plants (Shepherds Purse
Capsella bursa-pastoris) in the United Kingdom
express carnivorous behaviour?
John Gibson
Page 2
Page | 2
I certify that, except where indicated, all material in this thesis is the result of my own
work, presented in my own words, that any direct quotations are contained within
quotation marks with appropriate citation and that all sources of information used
(textual, graphic, etc) have been correctly cited in both the text and reference list in
accordance with the IBERS referencing style. The work has not previously been
submitted as part of any other assessed module, or submitted for any other degree
or diploma. I have read and abided by the University and Departmental statements
on plagiarism. I confirm that I have read, understood and abided by this declaration.
Page 3
Page | 3
Does one of the common plants (Shepherds Purse
Capsella bursa-pastoris) in the United Kingdom
express carnivorous behaviour?
Abstract
Global biodiversity has come under increasing focus in recent years due to demands on land and
altering of habitats causing declines in animal and plants species. With renewed emphasis upon
ecosystem services and efficient habitat management, it would seem important to understand the
ecological interactions that take place in the habitats we aim to protect. This study focuses upon
Shepherds Purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) and follows on from studies in the 1970’s. It was
suggested that this common UK plant may actually exhibit carnivorous traits when in its early stages
of growth. Understanding such common plants and their interactions is key if we are to manage
biodiversity effectively in an ever changing landscape. The study implemented three experiments to
directly investigate whether Capsella bursa-pastoris (plus other Brassicales) expressed carnivorous
traits starting from the germination of the seeds. Experiments set out to answer the three criteria for
being described as a carnivorous plant: Does the plant attract prey? Can the plant capture that prey?
Does the plant benefit from this interaction? The findings reported here agreed with previous studies
that the plant could attract and capture insects. However, it could not conclude that the plant
benefited from this interaction. Evidence did highlight however that all seed groups tested did have
an effect on killing the insects. The study places an emphasis to expand investigations into if
Capsella bursa-pastoris benefits in other stages of growth and opens the question “Is carnivorous
behaviour more widespread than we ever knew in our habitats”.
Page 4
Page | 4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Global biodiversity and its importance ...................................................................................... 5
1.2 Carnivorous Plants ................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 The possibility of Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds being carnivorous ......................................... 8
1.4 The changing countryside of the United Kingdom ................................................................... 10
1.5 The importance of understanding the biology of Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds ................... 10
2. Research questions ............................................................................................................. 11
3. Methods and materials ......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Materials .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Experimental insect - Fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster ........................................................ 11
3.3 The range of test plant seeds ................................................................................................ 12
3.4 Breaking seed dormancy. ....................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Germination and growth conditions . ...................................................................................... 13
4. The experimental designs .................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Experimental design one
-To test: Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds able to positively attract insect larvae? ........... 14
4.2 Experimental design two
-To test: Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds capable of increasing the mortality of insect
larvae within close proximity? ................................................................................................ 15
4.3 Data analysis for experiment one and two .............................................................................. 15
4.4 Experimental design three
-To test: Do Capsella bursa-pastoris, benefit in the early stages of growth from the presence
of deceased larvae? ................................................................................................................ 16
4.5 Data analysis for experiment three .......................................................................................... 17
5. Results .................................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Experimental one .................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Experimental two .................................................................................................................... 19
5.3 Experimental three ................................................................................................................. 26
6. Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 29
6.1 The attraction ......................................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Mortality rates ......................................................................................................................... 30
6.3 Have benefits been seen? ...................................................................................................... 32
7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 33
8. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 34
9. References ............................................................................................................................. 35
10. Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 41
Page 5
Page | 5
1. Introduction
This review explores the evidence that certain plants are carnivorous during germination and in the
early stages of growth. Several researchers, including Darwin (1896), have looked at plants that
exhibit insectivorous mechanisms. These include the Venus Fly Trap Dionaea muscipula, which
traps small insects (Kitchen, 1954). However studies have looked into the possibility that plants can
display such carnivorous traits at early stages of growth without visible adapted mechanisms. A brief
report by Barber (1978) published in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter, suggested that during the
germination of Shepherds Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds, they are able to attract mosquito
larvae. Killing them in order to benefit from their nutrients and therefore displaying carnivorous
characteristics. The purpose of this study was to investigate these claims that Shepherd’s Purse
seeds are carnivorous.
1.1 Global biodiversity and its importance
Recent analysis of global biodiversity has estimated that the number of flowering plant species is
352,000, but many have still not been described which means this number could rise to a more
accurate figure that is above 400,000 species (RBG, 2014). The number of flowering plant species
known to be threatened stood at 8,084 in 2010 (ICUN, 2010), with a significant driver of species loss
being from habitat change and introduced species (UNEP, 1995).
Generally plant diversity is highest in habitats that have an intermediate level of productivity. The
unimodel (also known as “the humpback”) created by Grimes (1973) explained the relationship
between the productivity of a habitat related to the diversity of plants that could survive. Low
productivity within a habitat (such as sand dunes), means its potential for supporting organisms
decreases due to limited food within the food chain. Similarly the number of species decreases in
the higher productive environments due to the competition for light (Grime, 1979). The intense
competition for light excludes many species because they are less able to compete under these
conditions. Therefore creating a habitat with a productivity that is ample for survival, but is not
excessive, means organisms can co-exist, but there is limited potential for any one species to
become dominant (Lambers et al, 2010).
Habitats with the greater potential for co-existence of species will also have a higher structural
complexity. This higher structural complexity of swards, regularly support a greater abundance and
diversity of species compared to habitats with less complex structural swards (high and low
productivity) (Heck & Wetstone, 1977). Intermediate levels of nutrients available to plants means
Page 6
Page | 6
that potential competitive species are unable to competitively exclude other species and therefore
biodiversity levels can be higher (Lambers et al, 2010).
The addition of nutrients into a “low nutrient environment” can limit the ability of species that have
adapted to these lower nutrient conditions to compete (Fisher et al, 2009). The addition of nutrients
promotes dominance from specialised plants to use the available nutrients to grow tall and form
extensive canopies, which can drastically affect the species diversity. Rosette forming plants then
have limited access to light, resulting in a decreased net biomass production under the canopy
(Eriksson et al, 2006). Anthropogenic impacts by nutrient pollution on such delicate environments
include direct nutrient application from farming and the burning of fossil fuels (Nature Education,
2013). The excess volumes of nitrogen and phosphorus in soils from these alter habitats by
creating nutrient enrichment (MEA, 2005).
In 1859, both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, coherently explained that species have the
abilities to adapt to their environments (Greenberger, 2005). Adaptions by animals and plants are
made possible by having variations of characteristics within populations. By having these variations
within the populations, a species can increase the probability of having selective traits that assist
reproduction or survival. Those surviving, or the most fertile individuals are typically suited to their
environment and this drives natural selection (Niklas, 1997). One evolved adaptation of plants
which highlights traits that are suited to their environment, is being carnivorous in a low nutrient
environment.
Terrestrial plants generally acquire the majority of their nutrients via the soil, either from direct
absorption from the roots or indirectly by symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi (Smith &
Read, 2008). A vast array of non-mycorrhizal plants living in low nutrient- habitats have developed
alternative highly specialised strategies to obtain essential nutrients for survival. One of these
strategies is to become a carnivore (Lambers et al, 2010).
1.2 Carnivorous plants
The discovery and identification of new carnivorous plants continues. Approximations in 1954 stood
at 500 species (Kitchen, 1954) compared to recent estimations from Bathlott et al (2007) of 630
species. These are species that have developed selective traits of a carnivorous nature, which
include attracting and trapping prey. Then the plant proceeds to produce digestive enzymes, so that
the plant can absorb the nutrients from that prey (Kitchen, 1954).
Carnivorous plants have evolved independently of each other, six times in five separate orders of
flowering plants (Albert et al, 1992). Taxonomically, carnivorous plants can be divided into two
divisions; passive (passively ensnaring animals) and non-passive (demonstrating movements to trap
Page 7
Page | 7
animals). Both divisions are typically found in very specific habitats and commonly in barren
locations. Environments with poor nutrients and limited soil availability create a requirement for
plants to adapt to traits like carnivory which can supplement their diet (MacPherson, 2010).
Non passive behaviour includes the adaptions of leaves to trap prey, digest prey and then adsorb
nutrients, as seen in Dionaea muscipula. Some plants, such as the Utricularia, have adapted so
much to a carnivorous diet, that the plant now has no reliance on photosynthesis (Adamec, 2006).
For the carnivorous trait to be beneficial, the plant must gain more energy than the energy spent.
The energy spent includes the production of nectars and odours to attract insects to drive evolution
of these carnivorous traits. The whole carnivorous process must gain more nutrients than what was
originally available in the soil (Moran, 1996; Bohn & Federle, 2004). Additional maintenance costs
to attract insects include ultra-violet designs and bright projections (Moran et al, 1999), consumable
trichomes (Merbach et al, 2002) as well as the excretion of mucilage or resin which can also
capture prey.
An example of passive carnivorous plants are the pitcher plants, such as Darlingtonia californica.
The Darlingtonia californica has adapted its leaves into a tubular shape to create a vase structure.
Insects are attracted inside the structure via glands that excrete nectar, which are positioned inside
a hooded formed leaf, which will then close to stop the insect from escaping (Botany Society of
America, 2012). The plant is reliant on those insects passively falling into the leaf structure. At the
base of the tubular leaf, digestive enzymes release the nutrients from insects that are consequently
absorbed by cells similar to those that are found on root systems (Slack, 2010).
One plant species which is still debated as a being a carnivorous plant is the teasel Dipsacus
fullomom (Dipsacaceae). The base of the leaves fill with rain water and this has been observed
capturing falling insects (Christy, 1923). However, the plant does not live in a low nutrient
environment, which would be regularly suggested to have caused the carnivorous trait (Ellison &
Gotelli, 2001). Instead the plant lives in soils which are calcareous and nitrogen enriched, which
would typically be a lethal environment to most carnivorous species (Adamec, 2006). The height of
the plant (ranging from 0.5-2.5m) is also greater then what would be expected (Lloyd, 1942). A
study by Shaw & Shackleton (2011) discovered that Dipsacus fullomom does in fact benefit from the
nutrients of captured insects. Instead of enhancing the growth of the plant, the additional mineral
nutrients from the insects appeared to increase the production and mass of its seeds. However, the
plant does not appear to attract insects, meaning it cannot be described as a fully carnivorous plant.
It is suggested that Dipsacus fullomom is possibly in an intermediate state of becoming fully
carnivorous and therefore is a protocarnivorous plant (Shaw & Shackleton, 2011).
Page 8
Page | 8
1.3 The possibility of Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds being carnivorous
Barber (1978) discussed the possibility that C.bursa-pastoris seeds may have the capability of
digesting the proteins of insects through enzymes. It still remains to be proven whether this species
benefits from this potential strategy. It is plausible, that the seeds may be neither passive nor non-
passive. Instead it may be a type of protocarnivorous plant, which is on the evolutional pathway to
becoming a defined carnivorous plant (Schnell, 2002). However, the plant does not display all the
traits (attract, kill and then digest prey), as seen with a true carnivorous plant (Albert et al, 1992).
Plants can benefit indirectly from the attracted insects, which can be seen in the case of the
protocarnivorous plant, Roridula gorgonias. This species captures insects but not to obtain their
nutrients, but to use the captured insects to attract another insect called Pameridea. It then benefits
from the nutrient that the Pameridea leaves whilst visiting via the feces, which fall onto the ground
and are absorbed by the root system (Acton, 2012).
Seed defence against pathogens can be seen throughout plant species via Reactive Oxygen
Species (ROS). These molecules, which are chemically reactive, are produced at various stages of
the seed’s life, from embryogenesis to germination (De-Rafael et al, 2001). Byregulating plant cell
growth, they are able to thicken cell walls, which is a defence against pathogens entering the plant.
It has been suggested by El-Maarouf-Bouteau & Bailly (2008) that seeds regularly have defences
against predation during germination from the ROS. The rise of intracellular ROS production in
germinating seeds, displays a defense reaction against microorganisms. If the ROS production
becomes extracellular, it could be possible to limit bacterial growth in soil and the development of
pathogens. Many seeds can be directly toxic to microorganism (El-Maarouf-Bouteau & Bailly, 2008)
and therefore may have the potential to kill. It also highlights the ability that various seeds have to
adapt to their surrounding natural environmental pressures.
C. bursa-pastrois have mucilaginous seed, which means they produce gel once submerged in
water.The mucilaginous covering of the seed aids the germination process by creating a heat shield
and reducing vital vapour loss (Young & Evans, 1973). The seeds especially benefit from the
mucilaginous covering, when colinizing new habitats that are disturbed and barren. The substance is
also a source of food and water, which enables the seed to be self sufficent and therefore it does not
need to rely on a covering of soil for germination. This is particularly beneficial when colinising a
disturbed habitat (Harper et al, 1965).
Barber (1978) discussed that the pellicles covering C. bursa-pastrois seed provided it with the
ability to release a sticky mucilage. The same ability applies to most of the Brassicaceae family (also
known as the mustard or cabbage family). The mucilage released provides the family with the
potential to attract and capture prey (Ying, et al, 2012). However, earlier studies by Barber et al
(1974) found that the mucilage released by Brassicaceae seeds, was not equal throughout the
Page 9
Page | 9
family. The study concludes that this variation in mucilage release within the Brassicaceae family
affected the ability to attract mosquito larvae, between different seed species.
The differing quanitities of mucilage released was directly linked to the odours which affected the
attraction of the larvae, therefore altering the larvae’s behavior. The variations of mucilage
released also affected their capability to capture mosquito larvae. Larvae which were in contact
with the C. bursa-pastrois seeds appeared to be attached by their mouths to the seeds (Barber,
1978). The cellulose element of the muscilage created the ability for the muscilage to become
sticky. Therefore, increased volumes of cellulose within the mucilage gel also increased its ability to
capture larva. The attachment of larvae, which was created by the cellulose within the muscilage
gel, appeared to kill the larvae by only attachment, stopping the larvae from feeding. Further studies
by Page and Barber (1975), concluded that the volumes of cellulose also affected chemotaxis.
Again the seeds with greater volumes of cellulose within the mucilage layer displayed greater
chemotaxis. The attraction of larvae to the seeds was notable only after being submerged in water.
Moreover the Brassicaceae seeds with less cellulose only showed similar abilities to attract larvae
after a prolonged period. Barber and Page (1974) also highlighted that the larvae died at a faster
rate when attached to the seeds compared to larvae without contact. The findings of Barber and
Page (1976) differed from the earlier studies of Barber et al (1974) because the latter concluded that
the larvae died due to toxins released within the aqueous attachment. However, both explained that
the larvae appeared to express no signs of struggle or stress.
Later studies from Barber and Page (1976), suggested that C. bursa-pastoris seeds may pocess the
ability to take up nutrients from dead larvae. This may be achieved by the hydrolysis of proteins
during the germination period. Amino acids can then be produced, which could be absorbed for the
benefit of growth. This was supported by a previous study by Nelson et al (1961), who concluded
that the imbibition of protein was possible via the release of protease in the mucilage during the
germination period of C. bursa-pastoris seeds. Barber (1978) concluded that the seed had displayed
features of being carnivorous, and this was more obvious in further studies using nematodes,
protozoans and bacteria. Even though the study concluded that the seeds attracted and captured
organisms, it was still unclear whether the plant would benefit from this process.
C. bursa-pastoris is widespread on the majority of continents and is also common in man-made
habitats (Neuffer, 2011). It has diverse characteristics within its genetic make-up, which are
influenced by multiple interacting factors (Hurka & Neuffer, 1997). Baker (1965) suggested that the
plant has a germination strategy, which can be described as a “general purpose genotype”. The
“general purpose genotype” is a germination strategy that plants can employ so they can utilize a
wide range of phenotypic plasticity. The ability to change its characteristics / traits to its new
environment provides the plant with the opportunity to often be a colonizer. The plant then has a
clear advantage, when arriving on cleared land (be that arable or urban) and also on disturbed soils,
where growing conditions can vary considerably between sites (Agate, 1998).
Page 10
Page | 10
1.4 The changing countryside of the United Kingdom
The biodiversity of the United Kingdom (UK) has been intrinsically linked to the agricultural practices
that have shaped the landscape due modernisation of agriculture. Consequently, agricultural land
also has the ability to generate and support the biodiversity in the UK (Commons, 2007). Recent
decades have seen the UK agricultural industry intensify which is having a detrimental effect on the
farmland biodiversity (MacDonald et al, 2012).
Plant species that have evolved to be habitat specialists have struggled to survive due to the altering
habitat conditions. Many species that evolved traits that were specific for their habitat requirements
have been disadvantaged by an altered habitat. The decline in species that were habitat specialists
has seen a trend of species that are habitat generalists becoming the common taxa. The habitat
generalist is capable of acommodating several different habitat conditions and therefore is more
adaptable to changing habitat conditions (Robinson & Sutherland, 2002).
1.5 The importance of understanding the biology ofCapsella bursa-pastoris seeds
This increases the importance of understanding the biology of C. bursa-pastoris, which is suggested
to be a habitat specialist (carnivorous traits). Interestingly, the plant also appears to display
characteristics of being a habitat generalist, due to its ability to colonise various locations. Species
that are lost through nutrient enrichment are those with these specialised adaptations to a low nutrient
environment.
Therefore understanding plants with carnivorous adaptations can be vital to understanding the low
nutrient environment. Developing knowledge will assist management of biodiversity in these areas,
especially when nutrient enrichment is so freely available in the modern world.
However, C. bursa-pastoris is not a rare plant and therefore has limited benefits for biodiversity
purposes. But it is vital to understand the ecological interactions within our habitats, to understand the
ecosystem services they provide. If the ecological interactions of common species are still not fully
understood, then we are in danger of losing mechanisms from the ecological interactions of rare
plants before they are known. Moreover, the benefits that come from these ecosystem services will be
lost.
Page 11
Page | 11
2. Research questions
I. Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds able to positively attract insect larvae?
II. Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds capable of increasing mortality of insect larvae within
close proximity?
III. Does Capsella bursa-pastoris benefit in the early stages of growth from the presence of
deceased larvae?
3. Methods and materials
3.1 Materials
All Brassicaceae family seeds (except Lepidium sativum) were purchased from a Emorsgate seeds
Ltd (Shepherds purse Capsella bursa-pastoris, Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata and Hairy bitter cress
Cardamine hirsute). The company collects wild seeds, which enabled my study to have a reasonable
reflection of wild ecological interactions and seed traits. Lycopersicum Var. cerasiforme and Lepidium
sativum, were commercially cultivated and purchased local to Aberystwyth, Wales.
Aberystwyth University provided: bench lamps (40watt bulbs), 24hr plug timer switches, plastic Petri
dishes (100mm and 50mm), Whatman grade 1 circular inserts (85mm and 50mm), distilled water,
Fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster larvae and a low energy microscope (Leica zoom 2000, 240v).
Data analysis was performed in SPSS (IBM SPSS 20 statistical package).
3.2 Experimental insect - Fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster
The orignal studies by Barber (1978) and Reeves and Garcia (1969), which explored the potential of
carnivorous traits in C. bursa-pastoris seeds, used Mosquito larvae. Mosquito larvae are mainly
water dwellers, which means they would be unlikely to interact with C. bursa-pastoris seeds (Silver,
2007).
Barber (1978) used nematodes, protozoans and bacteria as their experimental insects which also
found an enhanced mortality rate in the presence of C. bursa-pastoris seeds. These three were not
freely available , which was the same for other soil organisms, like worms , which might also come
into contact with of C. bursa-pastoris seeds in the soil environment. For this reason, Drosophila
melanogaster larvae were chosen. The Drosophila melanogaster larvae were the most freely
available animal within the University, which are similar morphologically to mosquito larvae. Also,
Drosophila melanogaster larvae have the potential of having a natural ecological interaction with C.
Page 12
Page | 12
bursa-pastoris seeds in the soil habitat in the UK. The colonies were also regularly checked for fungi
and infections, making the larvae a reliable cultivated test animal.
Larvae were reared in a media consisting of 80% maize flour, 10% yeast, 8% bacteriological agar,
10% glucose syrup, 10% propionic acid and 0.2% Nipigen. The colonies were maintained in a dry
incubator at the temperature of 24.5oC
The selected Drosophila melanogaster larvae were in their 1st instar larval stage of development. By
selecting individuals in the same developmental stage, it provided a minimum of four days of larval
activity until the pre-pupa stage (Ashburner & Thompson, 1978). Moreover, the experiments
monitoring the larvae’s behaviour were conducted for a length of 6 days.
3.3 The range of test plant seeds
The seeds of plant species were chosen because of their attributes for potential effects on larvae
behaviour and mortality. Four species from the Brassicaceae family were chosen, which were Garlic
Mustard Alliaria petiolata, Cress Lepidium sativum, Hairy Bitter cress Cardamine hirsute and
Shepherds Purse C. bursa-pastoris. The reason for the selection was to explore the possibility that
all the Brassicaceae family have the potential to exhibit carnivorous traits, as suggested by Barber
(1978).
To test if the growth of the plants or gases released during the germination affected the larvae,
Lepidium sativum and Alliaria petiolata were tested. Lepidium sativum is known for its reliable
growth at room temperature, whereas Alliaria petiolata was unlikely to germinate at all, as it was a
bulb. By using both of these, plus a control, it was then possible to test if plant growth or seed
presence, had an effect on the larvae.
To test if carnivorous traits are “cause and effect” (a trait caused to be developed by the presence of
external pressures), Cardamine hirsute was chosen. In the UK, the habitats of C. bursa-pastoris are
shared with the Cardamine hirsute. Their seed sizes are also similar (approximately 0.009grams),
which can be a driver for expressing a need for additional nutrition in early growth, as small seed are
unable to store large volumes of endogenous food (Barber, 1978).
To test outside the Brassicaceae family, Tomato seeds Lycopersicum Var. cerasiforme were
selected. It has been suggested that this plant has the ability to capture aphids via sticky hairs on
the stem (Smith, 2009 & Simons, 1981). Similar to the Dipsacus fullomom, the Lycopersicum var.
cerasiforme also has the potential to absorb those nutrients indirectly from insects, through the root
system (Simons, 1981). Therefore, Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme, may also be a protocarnivorous
plant.
Page 13
Page | 13
3.4 Breaking seed dormancy
Cardamine hirsute, C. bursa-pastoris seeds and Alliaria petiolata bulbs were stored in refrigeration
(4oC) for four days and in complete darkness, to optimise the viability (Lannetta et al, 2007). This
was not necessary for the Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme & Lepidium sativum seeds, due to the
seeds being modified from their natural state by commercial cultivation.
3.5 Germination and growth conditions
Germination was assumed to begin once the dry
seeds were in contact with water. For the seeds in
this study, moist conditions were deemed
appropriate conditions for germination (Woodstock,
1988). A pilot study revealed that 10ml (for 10cm
Petri dishes) and 5ml (for 5cm Petri dishes) of
distilled water was the minimum required to be
added to the samples every 24hr. The moist
environment created preferable conditions that were
suitable for the imbibition by the seeds to begin
(Robert et al , 2008).
To replicate spring/ autumn conditions which suit the
germination of C. bursa-pasoris seed (Utah State
University, 2014), the temperature ranged between
6oC (night temperature) and 26
oC (daytime
temperatures), which was also ample for all seeds in
this study. The daytime temperature also allowed the
fact that Drosophila melanogaster larvae develop optimally at 25oC in laboratory conditions
(Ashburner & Thompson, 1978). Light was provided for ten hours every day, as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A photo capturing the growing and
germination conditions provided for this
study.
Page 14
Page | 14
4. The experimental designs
4.1 Experimental design one
To test: Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds able to positively attract insect larvae?
The rate at which larvae were attracted to each seed was tested within 100mm Petri dishes. The
circular paper inserts, were divided by a single line separating the twenty seeds from the twenty
larvae (50:50 ratio). All seeds and larvae were placed at least 20mm from the dividing line to create a
40mm buffer zone (as seen in Figure 2). Counts of migrating larvae into the seed zone were
recorded every 24h, over a six day period. Each seed species had five replicates for this experiment.
Figure 2. An illustration of the set up for experiment one, to monitor larvae’s attraction and migration
towards the seed species. A buffer zone of 40mm separated the seeds from the larvae. Larvae that
past over the line into the territory of the seeds were recorded as counted data.
Buffer zone
Dividing line
separating
zones
20 larvae 20 seeds
Page 15
Page | 15
4.2 Experimental design two
To test: Are Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds capable of increasing the mortality of insect
larvae within close proximity?
Smaller Petri dishes (50mm) were used, to promote close proximity between the larvae and seeds,
enhancing the interaction between the twenty seeds and twenty larvae (50:50 ratio), as seen in
Figure 3. This was monitored for 6 days, every 24h, and then counted the active, pupated and
deceased larvae using a microscope. Each seed species had five replicates for this experiment.
Figure 3. An enlarged illustration of the mix of larvae and seeds within a 50mm Petri dish. All larvae
were free to migrate around the dish and recordings of counted dead larvae were taken every 24hrs.
4.3 Data analysis for experiment one and two
Due to the nature of the count data collected an unbalanced analysis was required. Using a Kruskal
Wallis test it was possible to analyse the significance of the difference within an equal distribution.
Larvae were kept as the dependant variable throughout and seeds were the independent variable
between each set of samples.
20 larvae/ 20
seeds mixed
Page 16
Page | 16
4.4 Experimental design three
To test: Do Capsella bursa-pastoris, benefit in the early stages of growth from the presence
of deceased larvae?
Each C. bursa-pastoris seed was paired alongside a dead adult larva, thus creating an environment
that provided the seed with the direct opportunity to absorb nutrients from the dead larvae (refer to
Figure 4). Placing the pair together, also directly challenged Barber and Page’s (1976) suggestions
that C. bursa-pastoris seeds have the capability to absorb nutrients from dead larvae.
Figure 4. An illustration of the set up for the experiment pairing all seeds alongside a dead larva. To
boost germinating seeds and recorded data, fifty seeds and fifty larvae were used in this experiment.
As mentioned previously, carnivorous traits are typically caused by external pressures, like a low
nutrient environment (MacPherson, 2010). Therefore, this experiment created four growing
environments for the seeds, to test if these affected the seedling growth (refer to Table 1).
The rate at which seedlings grew was tested within 100mm Petri dishes. To replicate a growing
environment where nutrients are freely available, topsoil was mixed with distilled water (50:50 ratio)
to release the nutrients. Once the liquid had settled, this was applied to the samples every 24h, in the
same quantity as distilled water (10ml minimum per dish). To replicate nutrient deprived conditions
the seeds were grown in isolation, except for water (Simons, 1981).Each treatment to C. bursa-
pastoris seeds was replicated 5 times.
Page 17
Page | 17
Samples Nutrients available
Control - No nutrient
environment
Just seeds and distilled
water
Low nutrient
environment without
insects
Soil nutrients only
Low nutrient
environment
with insects
Larval nutrients only
Diverse nutrient
availability
Soil and larval nutrients
Table 1.This table explains the four treatments that C. bursa-pastoris seeds were grown in, to
determine whether the seeds benefited from larval nutrients.
Due to difficulties prompting the growth of the Capsella seeds, the volumes of each sample
increased to fifty larvae and fifty seeds. Dry weight determinations were attempted in a pilot study for
all seeds, but the growth of all the seeds was not sufficient to produce the data required for this
study. Therefore, Capsella seedlings were deemed the sole focus for measurements of the growth.
Measurements, with a ruler, recorded the seedling’s height from the border of the seed to the top of
the main plant stem. In situ measurements reduced the damage to seedlings.
The samples were grown for fourteen days. Data counts were taken every day but statistically
analysed on the seventh day (mid-point) and fourteenth day (end of growth period).
4.5 Data analysis for experiment three
The amount of seeds that germinated throughout this experiment was not equal between the
samples. Therefore an unbalanced ANOVA statistical test was carried out using a general linear
model. All growth within each Petri dish was averaged (mean) and then placed within this statistical
test (seen in Table 2).
Page 18
Page | 18
Soil
+ -
+
Soil / Larvae Larvae
-
Soil Control
(No soil / no
larvae)
Table 2. The diagram above shows the four treatments which were used to grow the C. bursa-
pastoris seeds. It also shows the combinations of analyses used in the two way ANOVA analysis,
and the results can be seen in Tables 4 and 5.
5. Results
5.1 Experiment One
In experiment one the amount of larvae attracted to all seeds differs significantly (P=0.005) and this
is also the same when including the control samples (P=0.008). After the sixth day, C. bursa-pastoris
seeds, attracted significantly more than all other seeds and the control (refer to Figure five). The
enlarged error bars of C. bursa-pastoris group data do not overlap the error bars from all over seed
groups and the control. The results show that C. bursa-pastoris do positively attract the insect larvae.
It is also apparent that larvae appeared to favour both C. hirsute and Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme
compared to the control and L.sativum. The mean amount of larvae attracted to C. hirsute and
Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme is greater but the variance and this indicates that the range of data
overlaps with the range of data from A. petiolata. However, the larvae attracted to L. sativum is equal
to the control, which indicates the L. sativum seeds had no effect on attracting the larvae.
Larvae
Page 19
Page | 19
Figure 5. The histogram above shows the mean amounts of larvae attracted to each seed group. The
error bars are + /- standard error in each sample. The rate of attraction towards the seeds and the
control was significantly different after six days. The graph illustrates this significance coming from the
larvae that were attracted to the C.bursa pastoris seeds (for raw data, see appendix).
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
5.2 Experiment two
During the first 24hr ,the rate of mortality differed significantly between the seeds (P=0.003) and also
with the inclusion of control (P=0.001). C. bursa-pastoris and C. hirsute seeds both produced greater
mean mortalities compared to the other groups. The variances of the two seed groups were also
larger, indicating that the sample data within these seed groups varied considerably. The mean
number of larvae killed in the presence of C. bursa-pastoris seeds, shows that the larvae mortality
rate was higher in the first 24hr compared to all other seeds samples. In Figure 6, it is clear that C.
bursa-pastoris seeds are having a significant effect on the mortality of the larvae in the first 24hrs
compared to all groups except for the Cardamine hirsute seeds. In this first 24hrs, it also worth
mentioning that L. sativum and the control, did not affect the mortality of larvae. Whereas,
Page 20
Page | 20
Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme and A. petiolata appeared to increase the mortality rate, but to a far
lesser extent than C.bursa-pastoris and C. hirsute seeds.
Figure 6. The histogram above shows the mean mortality rate of larvae whilst in the presence of the
seeds and control samples after 24 hrs. There is a significant difference on the effect of each group of
seeds on the mortality rate of larvae. The histogram illustrates this difference coming from the higher
rate of mortality caused by C.bursa pastoris and C. hirsute seeds. The error bars are + /- standard
error in each sample. (for raw data, see appendix).
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
After 48hrs, there is not a significant difference (P = 0.055) between the mortality rate of the larvae in
all the seed groups. The histogram in Figure 7, indicates that there is a trend of C.bursa-pastoris and
C. hirsute seeds still are causing a higher mortality rate than the other seeds . Observations also
noticed the larvae becoming engulfed by both seeds in the first 48hrs, which can be seen in Figure 8.
The error bars of these two are also separate to all other seed’s variances which indicates that even
though it is not a significant difference, the trend is still apparent. If the C. hirsute was taken out of the
Page 21
Page | 21
graph, it is clear that C .bursa-pastoris was having a higher rate of mortality on the larvae. However,
there is a highly significant difference when the control is included (P=0.02). All the seeds appear to
have produced a greater mortality rate of larvae compared when the seeds were absent (control).
Figure 7. The histogram above shows the mean mortality rate of larvae whilst in the presence of the
seeds and control samples after 48 hrs. C.bursa-pastoris and C. hirsute seeds appear to have a trend
which follows the first 24hr period, where the mortality of larvae is higher. This is not a significant
difference compared to the other seeds in this experiment. The error bars are + /- standard error in
each sample.
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
Page 22
Page | 22
Figure 8. The photos above are observations of C.bursa-pastoris (Left photo) and C. hirsute seeds
(right photo), engulfing larvae with the mucilaginous substance released during their germination. The
red rings circle the seeds that are exhibiting this behaviour of capturing the larvae.
After 72hrs, there was no significant difference between the seeds, the significance ranged from
P=0.205 to P=0.368. C.bursa-pastoris seeds still gave the highest mean mortality rate of larvae
throughout the six days, but not at a significant rate. After the sixth day, Figure 9 indicates that C.
bursa-pastoris seeds were still not significantly different to the rest of the seeds (P=0.308). Using
Figure 10, it is possible to see that the mortality rate of larvae and variance rises with all seed groups.
The rate of mortality and variance of all seeds, are becoming closer to the rate of C.bursa-pastoris
seeds as the time progresses but A.petiolata mortality effect and variance is still visibly lower than that
of C.bursa-pastoris.
Page 23
Page | 23
Figure 9. The histogram above shows the mean mortality rate of larvae whilst in the presence of the
seeds and control samples after the sixth day. Compared to the first 24hrs (seen in Figure 6), the
means and variances are becoming less pronounced except for the control. The error bars are + /-
standard error in each sample.
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
When the control is included within the statistical analysis, there is a significant difference between
the six groups (P=0.008) after six days. When the control is included, the result is significant
throughout the experiment, ranging from P=0.002 to P=0.009 (refer to Table 3). Therefore the seeds
were having a significant effect on the mortality of larvae compared to the control which did not have
the seeds present (seen in Figure 10).
Page 24
Page | 24
Table 3. The table contains all the P values throughout the experiment, showing the significance
between the samples. It is clear to see that the main significant difference between the seeds’ effects
on mortality rate of larvae is in the first 24h period. Whereas, when the control is present, the
significance is constant throughout the six days.
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
Figure10. The Interpolation line and error bars above show the mean mortality rate of larvae and
standard errors, whilst in the presence of the seeds and control samples throughout the experiment. It
is possible to see from the graph that the mortality rate of the larvae became similar over time, as
evidenced by the condensed error bars. The control effect on the larvae was however always
significantly lower throughout. The error bars are + /- standard error in each sample.
*The control group has been carried out in this experiment at a later date.
Days 1 2 3 4 5 6
With
control*
0.001 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.009 0.008
Just
seeds
0.003 0.055 0.261 .205 .368 .308
Page 25
Page | 25
Whatever was causing the mortality differences during the first 48hrs, did not appear to be having a
lasting effect on the capability of Drosophila melanogaster to emerge from pupation. There is no
significant difference (P=0.398) between the amount of larvae that emerged as flies once they had
pupated (seen in Figure 11). C.bursa-pastoris seeds did have the lowest mean amount of larvae that
have pupated to emerge, but the variance of this data was also similar to the variance ranges of
Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme, A. petiolata and C. hirsute seeds . However, L. sativum did appear to
have more emerging flies in its population of pupated larvae compared to the larvae in the presence
of C.bursa-pastoris seeds.
Figure 11. The histogram above shows the mean number of flies which emerged after pupation. The
C. bursa pastoris did appear to lower the mean number of larvae that emerged from pupation, but this
is not significantly different to the other seeds in this experiment. The control was unable to be used in
this experiment due to timing. (For raw data, see appendix).
Page 26
Page | 26
5.3 Experiment three
According to the results from the Two Way ANOVA test, there was not a significant difference
between the four treatments (seen in Table 2). After seven days the growth of C. bursa-pastoris was
similar in each treatment compared to the control (soil - P=0.365, larvae- P=0.392, soil and larvae
P=0.392 reported in Table 4).
Figure 12. The histogram above shows the four treatments and the mean growth of C. bursa-
pastoris after seven days. The two way ANOVA analysis compared all four treatments against each
other and also in the absence of one another. (For raw data, see appendix).
Page 27
Page | 27
Table 4. The table above shows the output from the two way ANOVA analysis from data recorded on
the seventh day. From this table it is possible to see the results of the level of significant difference in
the growth measured in height, between the treatments. (For raw data, see appendix).
After fourteen days, the growth of seedlings was again not significantly different to the control (soil -
P=0.147, larvae - P=0.549, soil and larvae - P=0.826, refer to Table 5). Using Figure 12 and 13, it is
possible to see that the error bars are enlarged when the seeds were grown in the presence of both
soil and larvae. The enlarged error bars were present in both the seventh and fourteenth day growing
periods, showing there was a larger variance of plant heights in the samples in this treatment.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: plant height
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 10.182a 3 3.394 .708 .574
Intercept 430.954 1 430.954 89.858 .000
Soil 4.420 1 4.420 .922 .365
Larvae 3.920 1 3.920 .817 .392
soil * larvae 3.920 1 3.920 .817 .392
Error 38.368 8 4.796
Total 564.690 12
Corrected Total 48.549 11
a. R Squared = .210 (Adjusted R Squared = -.087)
Page 28
Page | 28
Figure 13. The histogram above shows the four treatments and the mean growth of C. bursa-pastoris
after fourteen days. The two way ANOVA analysis compared all four treatments against each other
and also in the absence of one another. (For raw data, see appendix).
Page 29
Page | 29
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: plant_height
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 17.799a 3 5.933 .862 .487
Intercept 796.548 1 796.548 115.718 .000
Soil 16.576 1 16.576 2.408 .147
Larvae 2.615 1 2.615 .380 .549
soil * larvae .350 1 .350 .051 .826
Error 82.602 12 6.884
Total 953.479 16
Corrected Total 100.401 15
a. R Squared = .177 (Adjusted R Squared = -.028)
Table 5. The table above shows the output from the two way ANOVA analysis from data recorded on
the fourteenth day. From this table it is possible to see the results of the level of significant difference
in the growth measured in height, between the treatments. (For raw data, see appendix).
6. Discussion
This study set out to explore the possibility of carnivorous traits in C. bursa-pastoris seeds, as
mentioned by Barber (1978). Three experiments were implemented to question different aspects of
a true carnivorous plant. These being; do the seeds attract larvae? Do they kill the larvae? Plus
finally are the C. bursa-pastoris seeds able to benefit from the nutrients from deceased larvae? The
results from these experiments found that the C. bursa-pastoris seeds do attract more larvae at a
significantly different rate compared to the four other seeds tested. The C. bursa-pastoris seeds also
possessed the ability to increase the mortality rate of larvae at a significant rate in the first 24hrs. But
this study was not able to conclude whether C .bursa-pastoris was able to benefit during early stages
of growth from the presence of the deceased larvae.
6.1 The attraction
The results are similar to some of the findings from Barber and Page (1975), who found that C. bursa-
pastoris seeds caused a positive chemotaxis of larvae. Barber and Page (1975) concluded that
certain mucilaginous seeds once submerged in water strongly attracted larvae. Moreover, results from
experiment one in my study found only the C. bursa-pastoris and C. hirsute significantly attracted
larvae compared to the other mucilaginous seeds. A possible reason for the greater attraction of
larvae to C. bursa-pastoris seeds may relate to the discussion from Barber et al ( 1974) & Ying, et al(
Page 30
Page | 30
2012) regarding the mass of mucilage that each seed could release. There is evidence from Young &
Evans (1973) that the coating of the C. bursa-pastoris seeds contain approximately 25% mucilaginous
substance. Whereas, for instance the L. sativum seeds only contain approximately between 6.5 -15%
(Divekar et al, 2005) which correlated with (Barber et al, 1974) that the amount of available mucilage
affected the potential to attract larvae.
Barber and Page (1975) explained that seeds that produced mucilage which was “sticky”, had a better
ability to attract larvae. Whereas, the C. hirsute in experiment one, did appear to have a similar ability
to “stick” to larvae similar to C. bursa-pastoris, but did not attract more larvae than Lycopersicum var.
cerasiforme. The Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme seeds didn’t appear to have any ability to stick to the
larvae, but still attracted more than C. hirsute.
It would be beneficial in future experiments to use a chemical analyse of the seeds mucilage to
determine the potential attractant. Panizzi & Parr (2012) found that Drosophila melanogaster larvae
do have a preference to food selection which is mediated by allochemicals. Using the observations of
the larvae feeding on Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme but not on C. bursa-pastoris seeds, it would
interesting to analysis what allochemicals are present and if C. bursa-pastoris is manipulating
chemicals to attract.
The differing effects of each seed group to attract the larvae in my study, could be because of
specific plant / insect relationships. More than 80% herbivore insects are specialist feeders on only a
singular plant family or specie (Loon et al, 2000).
Therefore, the significant results from experiment do demonstrate that Drosophila melanogaster
larvae are positively attracted to C. bursa-pastoris seeds. This may not be enough to conclude that
no insects are attracted to the other four seed groups but a need to develop this experiment with
other insect species, nemotodes or protozoans. The additional insects could also investigate whether
C. bursa-pastoris seeds attract a variety of insect species.
6.2 Mortality rates
The results seen in experiment two are demonstrating that all seeds had some affect on the mortality
of the larvae over a prolong period. The same conclusion came from the studies of Barber and Page
(1975), but the result from my study show this not exclusive to the Brassicaceae family. What is
clear is that there is a significant difference between the different seeds ability to affect the mortality
in the first 24hrs. Larvae in contact with C. bursa-pastoris seeds did die at a much faster rate.
The early studies from Barber et al (1974) suggested that the cellulose element of the mucilage gel
that ouzed from the seeds affected the capability its to stick to the larvae. Thus, stopping the larvae
from feeding. Although larave do have the ability to survive without food for a length of time due to
utilisation of their internal food reserves (Pomerai, 1990). In this case, the control sample displays the
Page 31
Page | 31
larvaes ability to exhaust its internal reserves, which the mortality rate is still signiifcantly lower to all of
the seeds groups on the sixth day. Observation seen in experiment two, saw no signs of struggle
which mirrors Barber et al (1974) and Barber and Page (1976) studies, but the experiment does
reveal that the cause of higher mortality rate was probably not caused by food deprivation as
suggested by Barber et al (1974) .
The Brassicales plants are known to produce glucosinolates within their tissue (Chen et al, 2007) and
these secondary metabolites are a defense mechanism towards insect herbivores to limit its
predation (Winde & Wittstock, 2011). Specialist feeders such as the larvae of the butterflies from the
Pieridae family, feed exclusively on Brassicales plants and have specialist adaptations to deal with
the toxic glucosinolates consumed (Loxdale et al, 2011). Another possible group of chemical
compounds called Saponins could also be at work in the seeds. These compounds are also
abundant throughout the plant kingdom and serve as a protection from microorganism, fungi and are
toxic to insects in high concentrations. It would be interesting to analyse the quanities of
glucosinolates and saponins inside the seeds and determine whether there is a correlation to
mortality rates of larvae (Kuzina et al, 2009). Especially as the advances in technology since the
1970’s look beyond the cellulose level and possibly could give a clearer indication of the chemical
properties within the seeds causing the mortalities, expanding on Barber and Page’s (1976)
conclusion that toxins are at work to cause higher levels of mortalities in larvae. But it does appear
that whatever is causing the increased mortality is not effecting the larvae’s developement
throughout the pupation period ( refer to Figure 11).
Cardamine hirsute and C. bursa-pastoris seeds both had a similar trend to cause an enhanced
mortality of larvae compared to other seeds in the first 24hrs and into the 48hrs period. If the killing is
a form of defence rather than a mechanism to gain nutrients, it might explain the relations as
suggested by Loon et al (2000) that plants in the same family can share defence mechanisms.
Studies by Haak et al (2013) have revealed there is “cause and effect” in relation to environmental
pressures such as local predation from herbivores. Their study focused on the genus Lycopersicum
and found that there is a range of abilities within the genus to kill insects depending on the species
and their environmental pressures. Interestingly, the plants are capable of allocating toxins into the
plant tissue when damaged, creating a physical barrier, which can then lead to direct mortality of
small insects (Eriksson A. , 2007). It is therefore feasible to think that wild Lycopersicum may be
capable of allocating toxins as a defence mechanism, to its seeds, to deter animals. Therefore the
commercially cultivated Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme used in this study, may not exhibit the full
ability of its genus to kill insects because of the toxic trait being bred out. In hindsight, using
Lycopersicum var. cerasiforme as the non-Brassica control plant may not have been appropriate
because they have known toxicity in the genus. Also this could be another line of experiments, as the
genus Lycopersicum might have protocarnivorous traits in certain conditions.
Page 32
Page | 32
But the “cause and effect” may explain why both C. hirsute and C. bursa-pastoris seeds had similar
effects on the mortality rates of larvae. Due to the similarities in the seed sizes, shared habitats and
germination strategies.
6.3 Have benefits been seen?
The results from experiment three indicate that imbibition seeds are not benefiting from the additional
larvae nutrients. Between the four treatments the height of new growth of C. bursa-pastoris was not
significantly different when grown in the different conditions. The results from each treatment are
similar after seven or fourteen days, with the C. bursa-pastoris seedlings are not demonstrating any
benefit with the additional nutrients available from soil or larva. A common theme is the enlarged
variance in the height within the treatment which contains both larvae and soil on both seven and
fourteen days.
Nelson et al (1961) explained that it was possible for C. bursa-pastoris seeds to gain the protein
released from the deceased larvae. If the seedlings were obtaining the protein then the benefit was
not being expressed during the fourteen days of early growth.
Therefore, this study can only state the same as Barber (1978) studies did by stating that it is still
unclear if the plant benefits from the process.
The results from experiment three are limited and only focus on the height of the plant in the early
stages of growth. The results do not show if carnivorous traits are present in the plant throughout its
stages of growth, just the young growth and its height. For instance, the experiment does not provide
the opportunity for the C. bursa-pastoris plants to express other benefits from obtain protein such as
an increased establishment rate or reproductive capabilities. These two possible benefits could only
be assessed fairly if the plant was grown to maturity. The advantage of additional protein may only
be seen after the nutrient from the seed has been completed depleted (Raven et al, 2005). The
beginning of establishment phase, is a particularly vulnerable stage of the plants life cycle and
therefore the additional available proteins maybe particularly beneficial at this at this stage. This
vulnerability also applies to pathogens and predator attacks within and above the soil which again
might see the advantage of a defence mechanism particularly useful (Sheldon, 1974). The seedling
will also be open to abiotic factors such as temperature and moisture, therefore the ability to grow
strong will be a distinct advantage. The absorption of additional proteins would be advantageous at
this stage to create a defence of such conditions (Bradley et al, 2002).
As seen in the study of Dipsacus fullomom by Shaw & Shackleton (2011), the additional nutrients
from insect maybe only be when the plant matures and in this case ,it was to benefit the reproductive
process. Dipsacus fullomom actually used the additional nutrients from the captured insects to
increase the production and mass of seeds (Shaw & Shackleton, 2011). C. bursa-pastoris lives in a
variety of soils, which are not always depleted of nutrients and in fact are nutrient rich in agricultural
Page 33
Page | 33
habitats. Both Dipsacus fullomom and C. bursa-pastoris are commonly found on disturbed ground
and seen as earlier colonisers of land (Harris & Harris, 1997). Therefore the ability to have a
reproductive advantage could be key to their survival in a new habitat.
The enlarged variance recorded in height data when both larvae and soil was present may also need
to be explored. The variance in height data may reflect the “general purpose genotype” which Baker
(1965) previously explained that C. bursa-pastoris deploys to utilize a wide range of habitats and
conditions. Therefore, there are possibly a variety of individuals within the species that thrive in
differing conditions. Moreover the individuals that thrive in low nutrient conditions and limited soils
availability are the individuals within a species that may express carnivorous traits to supplement their
diet (MacPherson, 2010). So to test this idea, it would be appropriate to alter abiotic factors and
provide a variety of soils to explore whether individuals within the C. bursa-pastoris species would use
the available insect nutrients in certain conditions. Therefore, creating the right conditions to activate
possible genotypes, which utilise a carnivorous trait.
7. Conclusion
The conclusion of this study is that C. bursa-pastoris have shown the ability to demonstrate two
carnivorous traits; to attract and to kill. But the study was not able to conclude the third and conclusive
carnivorous trait; to benefit from the deceased animal, meaning the study cannot declare that C.
bursa-pastoris seeds are carnivorous. However, the findings from this study and evidence from the
literature have suggested that whether the plant benefits from the interaction needs to be further
explored.
Moreover, findings suggest that all seeds in this experiment had some effect on the larvae’s mortality
rate. As discussed previously, this is one aspect of a carnivorous trait and with the expansion of the
investigation to include microorganisms, bacteria and other insects, there may be an attraction and
benefit for other plant species too. To fully understand if the plant is expressing benefits from the
animal interaction, it may be beneficial in future experiments to observe plants throughout their life
cycle instead of just the new growth.
Carnivorous traits might be prevalent throughout the plant communities. Without thorough
investigations into each species, we are not able to truly understand the ecological interactions within
the habitats we are trying to manage. In a landscape that is increasingly being intensely managed for
ecosystem services, due to the demand for land, it is crucial that we understand what we are
managing.
Word count: 7480
Page 34
Page | 34
8. Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the people that have made a real difference in my progress up to
finishing this dissertation. First of all I would like to give thanks to my dissertation tutor, Dr John
Warren, for his attentive guidance and support throughout. A special thanks goes out to all of those
that have changed my academic potential and help me overcome my challenges with dyslexia.
Starting at Easton College with Kristine Robinson, Jerry Kingsley, Deborah Carpenter, Hannah Booty
and throughout my dissertation at Aberystwyth University, a special thanks goes to Alison Nash. Last
but no means least, thanks to all the support from a special group of friends in Aberystwyth and
family in Norwich.
Page 35
Page | 35
9. Reference
Acton, A. (2012). Issues in Global Environment: Biology and Geoscience: 2011 Edition. Atlanta:
Scloarly Editions.
Adamec, L. (1997). Mineral nutrition of carnivorous plants: a review. Botany Review, 63, 273–299.
Adamec, L. (2006). Respiration and photosynthesis of bladders and leaves of aquatic Utricularia
species. Plant Biology, 8, 765-769.
Agate, E. (1998). The Urban Handbook: A Practical Guide to Community Environmental Work.
Doncaster: British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.
Albert, A., Williams, S., & Chase, M. (1992). Carnivorous plants: Phylogeny and structural evolution.
Science, 257, 1491-1495.
Ashburner, M., & Thompson, J. (1978). The Laboratory culture of Drosophila. The genetics & biology
of Drosophila, 2, 1-81.
Atwell, B., Kriedemann, P., & Turnbull, C. (1999). Plants in Action; Adaptation in Nature. South Yarra:
Macmillan Education Australia PTY Ltd.
Baker, H. (1965). Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. London: Academic Press.
Barber, J., & Page, C. (1976). Whats New in Plant Physiol. 8(6), 1-5.
Barber, T. (1978). Capsella bursa-pastoris seeds. Are they "carnivorous"? 39-42.
Barber, T., Page, C., & Felscot, A. (1974). Mosq News. 8, 394-398.
Barthlott, W., Porembski, S., Seine, R., & Theisen, I. (2007). A Comprehensive Guide to Their Biology
and Cultivation. Portland: Timber Press.
Behrouziana, F., Razavia, S., & Phillips, G. (2014). Cress seed (Lepidium sativum) mucilage, an
overview. Bioactive Carnhydrates and Dietary Fibre, 3(1), 17-28.
Bohn, H., & Federle, W. (2004). Insect aquaplaning: Nepenthes pitcher plants capture prey with the
peristome, a fully wettable water-lubricated anisomatic surfaces. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 14138–14143.
Botany Society of America. (2012). Darlingtonia. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from Botany:
http://botany.org/Carnivorous_Plants/Darlingtonia.php
Bradley, I., Gale, P., & Winterbottom, M. (2002). The Heinemann Science Scheme, Book 3. London:
Heinemann.
Chase, M., Christenhusz, M., Sanders, D., & Fay, M. (2009). Murderous plants: Victorian Gothic,
Darwin and modern insights into vegetable carnivory. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
society, 161, 329-356.
Page 36
Page | 36
Chen, H., Wang, H., & Li, Z. (2007). Production and genetic analysis of partial hybrids in intertribal
crosses between Brassica species (B. rapa, B. napus) and Capsella bursa-pastoris. Plant Cell
Rep., 26(10), 1791-1800.
Christy, M. (1923). The common teasel as a carnivorous plant. Journal of Botany, 61, 33–45.
Commons, H. o. (2007). The UK Government's "Vision for The Common Agricultural Policy"fourth
report of session 2006-07, Vol. 2: Oral and written evidence. London: The Stationery office.
Darwin, C. (1896). Insectivorous plants. New York: Appleton and Co.
De Cauwer, B., Devos, D., Claerhout, S., Bulcke, R., & Reheul, D. (2013). Seed dormancy, germination,
emergence and seed longevity in Galinsoga parviflora and G. quadriradiata. The
International Journal of Weed Biology, Ecology and Vegetation Management, 54, 38-47.
De Rafael, M., Valle, T., Babiano, M., & Corchete, P. (2001). Correlation of resistance and H2O2
production in Ulmus pumila and Ulmus campestris cell suspension cultures inoculated with
Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Physiol Plant, 111, 512-518.
Deng, W., Iannetta, P., Hallett, P., Toorop, P., Squire, G., & Jeng, D. (2013). The rheological properties
of the seed coat mucilage of Capsella bursa-pastoris L. Medik. (shepherd's purse).
Biorheology, 50(1), 57-67.
DiTomaso, J., & Healy, E. (2007). Weeds of California and Other Western States. Richmond: UCANR
Publications.
Divekar, V., Kalaskar, M., & Redasani, V. (2005). Isolation and characterization of mucilage from
Lepidium sativum Linn seeds. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and
Development, 2(1), 1-5.
Duke, J. (2000). Handbook of Edible Weeds: Herbal Reference Library. Florida: CRC Press.
Ellison, A., & Gotelli, E. (2001). Evolutionary ecology of carnivorous plants. Trends Ecology Evolution,
16, 623-623.
El-Maarouf-Bouteau, H., & Bailly, C. (2008). Oxidative signaling in seed germination and dormancy.
Plant Signalling & Behavior, 3(3), 175-182.
Emorsgate . (2013). Wildflower and Grass seeds. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from Emorsgate seeds:
http://wildseed.co.uk/
Eriksson, A. (2007). Induced defense in tomato damaged by Spodoptera littoralis larvae. Alnarp:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Eriksson, B., Rubach, A., & Hillebrand, H. (2006). Biotic habitat complexity controls species diversity
and nutrient effects on net biomass production. Ecology, 87(1), 246-254.
Fisher, J., Loneragen, W., Dixon, K., Delaney, J., & Veneklass, E. (2009). Altered vegetation structure
and composition linked to fire frequency and plant invasion in a biodiverse woodland.
Biological Conservation, 142, 2270-2281.
Page 37
Page | 37
Givnish, T., Burkhardt, E., Happel, R., & Weintraub, J. (1984). Carnivory in bromeliad Brocchinia
reducta, with a cost / benefit model for the general restriction of carnivorous plants to
sunny, moist, nutrient-poor habitats. American Naturalist, 124, 479-497.
Greenberger, R. (2005). Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group
Inc.
Grime, J. (1973). Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature, 242, 344–347.
Grime, J. (1979). Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Chichester: John Wiley.
Haak, D., & Moyle, L. (2013). Ecological Genomics of plant defense in wild tomatoes. Botany 2013 (p.
Abstract). Bloomington: Indiana University.
Haak, D., Moyle, L., & Hahn, M. (2013, December 5). Staple of recipe favorites--the tomato--reveals
processes that maintain biodiversity. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from National Science
Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=129676
Harper, J., Williams, J., & Sager, G. (1965). The behaviour of seeds in soil. Journal of Ecology, 273-
286.
Harris, E., & Harris, J. (1997). Wildlife conservation in managed woodlands and forests. London:
Nature Publishing Group.
Heck, K., & Wetstone, G. (1977). Habitat complexity and invertebrate species richness and
abundance in tropical seagrass meadows. Journal of Biogeography, 4, 135-142.
Hurka, H., & Neuffer, B. (1997). Evolutionary processes in the genus Capsella (Brassicaceae. Plant
Syst. Evol, 2006, 295–316.
ICUN. (2010). Summary statistics table. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from Red List species:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2010_3RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf
INRA. (2014). Seedcorn maggot, Bean seed fly. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from INFA Science & Impact:
http://www7.inra.fr/hyppz/RAVAGEUR/6delpla.htm
Kitchen, T. (1954). Insectivorous Plants. Bios, 25(3), 148-159.
Kleijn, D., Rundlof, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Does conservation on farmland
contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(9), 474-481.
Krebs, J., Wilson, J., Bradbury, R., & Siriwardena, G. (1999). The Second Silent Spring? Nature, 400,
611-612.
Krol, E., Plachno, B., Adamec, L., Stolarz, M., Dziubinska, H., & Trebacz, K. (2012). Quite a few reasons
for calling carnivores 'the most wondeful plants in the world'. Annals of Botany, 109, 47-64.
Kuzina, V., Ekstrøm, C., Andersen, S., Nielsen, S., Olsen, E., & Bak, S. (2009). Identification of Defense
Compounds in Barbarea vulgaris against the Herbivore Phyllotreta nemorum by an
Ecometabolomic Approach. Plant Physiol, 151(4), 1977-1990.
Page 38
Page | 38
Lambers, H., Brundrett, M., Raven, J., & Hooper, S. (2010). Plant mineral nutrition in ancient
landscapes: high plant species diversity on infertile soils is linked to functional diversity for
nutritional strategies. Plant soil, 334, 11-31.
Lancaster County University. (2014). Insects, spiders, mice and more. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from
UNL Extension in Lancaster County:
http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/resources/pantrypests304.shtml
Lannetta, P., Begg, G., Hawes, C., Young, M., & Squire, G. (2007). Variation in Capsella (shepherd's
purse): an example of intraspecific functional diversity. Physiologia Plantarum, 129, 542-554.
Lloyd, F. (1942). The Carnivorous plants. New York: Ronald Press.
Loon, J., Boer, J., & Dicke, M. (2000). Parasitoid-plant mutualism: parasitoid attack of herbivore
increases plant reproduction. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 97, 219–227.
Loxdale, H., Lushai, G., & Harvey, J. (2011). The evolutionary improbability of ‘generalism’ in nature,
with special reference to insects. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103(1), 1-18.
MacDonald, M., Maniakowski, M., Cobbold, G., Grice, P., & Anderson, G. (2012). Effects of agri-
environment management for stone curlews on other biodiversity. Biological Conservation,
148(1), 134-145.
MacPherson, S. (2010). Carnivorous Plants and Their Habitats. Poole: Redfern Natural History
Productions Ltd.
Merbach, M., Merbach, D., Maschwitz, U., Booth, W., Fiala, B., & Zizka, G. (2002). Carnivorous
plants: mass march of termites into the deadly trap. Nature, 415, 387-388.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Synthesis Reports. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from
Overview of the Milliennium Ecosystem Assessment:
http://www.maweb.org/en/About.aspx
Mohlenbrock, R. (1980). Flowering Plants: Willows to Mustards. Illinois: SIU Press.
Moran, J. (1996). Pitcher dimorphism, prey composition and the mechanisms of prey attraction in
the pitcher plant Nepenthes rafflesiana in Borneo. Journal of Ecology, 84, 515-525.
Moran, J., Booth, W., Charles, & J. (1999). Aspects of pitcher morphology and spectral characteristics
of six Bornean Nepenthes pitcher plantspecies: implications for prey capture. Annals of
Botany, 83, 521-528.
Moyes, L. (2004). Adaptatio in plant speciation; evidence for the role of selection in the evolution of
isolating bariers between plant species. Plant adaptation: Molescular Genetics and Ecology,
82-93.
Nature Education. (2013). The nitrogen cycle: Processes, Players and Human Impacts. Retrieved
March 17, 2014, from Knowledge Project:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-nitrogen-cycle-processes-players-
and-human-15644632
Page 39
Page | 39
Nelson, W., Ciaccio, E., & Hess, G. (1961). Anal. Biochem. 2, 39-44.
Neuffer, B. (2011). Native range variation in Capsella bursa-pastoris (Brassicaceae) along a 2500 km
latitudinal transect. Flora - Morphology, Distribution, Funtional Ecology of Plants, 206(2),
107-119.
Newsham, K., Fitter, A., & Watkinson, A. (1995). Multifunctionality and biodiversity in arbuscular
mycorrhizas. Trends Ecol Evol, 10, 407-411.
Niklas, K. (1997). The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. Chicago: The University Press.
Page, C., & Barber, J. (1974). Proc. Calif. Mosq. Cont. Assoc. 42, 70.
Page, C., & Barber, J. (1975). Mosq News. 35, 47-54.
Panizzi, A., & Parr, J. (2012). Insect Bioecology and Nutrition for Integrated Pest Management. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Pomerai, D. (1990). From Gene to Animal: An Introduction to the Molecular Biology of Animal.
Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Raven, P., Evert, R., & Eichhorn, S. (2005). Biology of Plants. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company
Publishers.
Reeves, E., & Garcia, C. (1969). Mosquito News. 29, 601-607.
Rice, B. (2011). Carnivorous plants: reversing the roles of predator and prey. A review of carnivory in
the botanical world, 496-518.
Robert, C., Noriega, A., Tocino, A., & Cervantes, E. (2008). Morphological analysis of seed shape in
Arabidopsis thaliana reveals altered polarity in mutants of the ethylene signaling pathway.
Journal of Plant Physiology, 165, 911-919.
Robinson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming a biodiversity in Great
Britain. Journal of applied ecology, 39, 157-176.
Royal Botanic Gardens. (2014). The environment. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from Kew Royal Botanic
Gardens: http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/environment/challenges/how-many-
flowering-plants
Saxena, K., & Rembold, H. (1984). Attraction of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) larvae by chickpea seed
powder constituents. Journal of applied Entomology, 97(1-5), 145-153.
Schnell, D. (2002). Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada. Markham: Timber Press.
Shaw, P., & Shackleton, K. (2011). Carnivory in the Teasel Dipsacus fullonum — The Effect of
Experimental Feeding on Growth and Seed Set. Plos One, 6(3).
Sheldon, J. (1974). The Behaviour of Seeds in Soil: III. The Influence of Seed Morphology and the
Behaviour of Seedlings on the Establishment of Plants from Surface-Lying Seeds. Journal of
Ecology, 64(1), 47-66.
Page 40
Page | 40
Silver, J. (2007). Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods. Dordrecht: Springer.
Simons, P. (1981). How exclusive are carnivorous plants? Carnivorous Plant news Letter, 61-81.
Slack, A. (2010). Carnivorous Plants. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Smith, S., & Read, D. (2008). Mycorrhizal symbiosis (3rd ed.). London: Academic Press and Elsevier.
Stinson, K., Campbell, S., Powell, J., Wolfe, B., & Callaway, R. (2006). Invasive Plant Suppresses the
Growth of Native Tree Seedlings by Disrupting Belowground Mutualisms. Plos One Biology,
4(5).
UNEP. (1995). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Utah State University. (2014). Weed guide - Mustard family. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from
Extension Utah State University:
http://extension.usu.edu/weedguides/files/uploads/brassicaceae.pdf
Weitbrecht, K., Muller, K., & Leubner, G. (2011). First off the mark: early seed germination. Journal of
Experimental Botany, 1-21.
Winde, I., & Wittstock, U. (2011). Insect herbivore counteradaptations to the plant glucosinolate-
myrosinase system. Phytochemistry, 72(13), 1566-1575.
Woodstock, L. (1988). Seed imbibition: a critical period forsuccessful germination. Journal of Seed
Technology, 12, 1-15.
Ying, A., Dun, Y., Tan, A., Carol, C., Baskin, A., Jerry, M., et al. (2012). Role of mucilage in seed
dispersal and germination of the annual ephemeral Alyssum minus (Brassicaceae).
Australian Journa of Botany, 60(5), 439-449.
Young, J., & Evans, R. (1973). Mucilaginous Seed Coats. Weed Science, 21(1), 52-54.
Page 41
Page | 41
10. Appendix
Attraction and pupation data
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Bittercress sample 1 20 1 0
20 6 0
18 13 2
17 14 3 3 17 17 3 3
0
sample 2 18
2
19 6 1
20 6 0 20 8
0 20 10
0 20 12
0
sample 3 18 1 2
20 5 0
20 7 0
19 8 1 1 18 8 2 1 19 14 1 1
sample 4 19 2 1
19 4 1 1 17 5 3 3 17 7 3 3 18 7 2 2 17 13 3 2
sample 5 20 3 0
19 3 1
17 3 3 1 18 6 2 2 17 8 3 3 14 10 6 3
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Shepherds Purse sample 1 16
4
12 5 8 6 11 8 9 9 10 8 10 9 8 8 12 10 10 9 10 10
sample 2 19
1 1 11 3 9 2 11 3 9 6 11 3 10 7 8 3 12 10 6 6 14 14
sample 3 17 1 3 1 15 3 5 3 12 5 8 5 12 7 8 7 7 7 13 12 7 7 13 13
sample 4 14
6
13 3 7 3 11 5 9 7 10 8 10 9 8 8 12 11 7 7 13 13
sample 5 19
1
18 3 2
16 4 4 3 16 9 4 3 15 11 5 4 15 15 5 5
Page 42
Page | 42
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Garlic Mustard sample 1 20 9 0
16 10 4
18 11 2
20 12 0
17 16 3 2 17 17 3 2
sample 2 20 3 0
16 4 4 1 17 6 3 2 15 8 5 4 15 14 5 4 16 16 4 4
sample 3 20 4 0
20 11 0
19 11 1
17 2 3 1 19 3 1 1 19 18 1 1
sample 4 20 1 0
17 1 3 2 16 1 4 3 17 4 3 3 17 7 3 3 17 17 3 3
sample 5 20
0
19 6 1
19 7 1
18 7 1
18 13 2 1 18 4 2 1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Tomato sample 1 20 3 0
17 4 3
16 5 4
18 9 1 1 17 15 3 3 17 16 3 3
sample 2 20
0
16 12 4
15 14 5
16 14 4 3 16 16 4 4 sample 3 20 4 0
14 5 6
18 6 2
17 11 3 1 19 18 1 1 19 19 1 1
sample 4 20 3 0
11 7 9 1 16 8 4 1 15 8 5 4 15 15 5 5 sample 5 20 5 0
19 8 1
14 10 6 6 13 10 7 7 13 12 6 1 13 13 7 7
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Cress sample 1 20 4 0
20 9 0
19 11 1
19 17 1 1 18 17 2 1 17 17 3 3
sample 2 20 1 0
20 3 0
19 5 1 1 18 5 2 2 sample 3 18 2 2
19 5 1
19 8 1
19 8 1 1 19 9 1 1 19 18 1 1
sample 4 18 2 2
20 2 0
19 2 1
20 2 0
19 3 1 1 19 19 1 1
sample 5 20 1 0
18
2 1 19 3 1 1 19 3 1 1 19 19 1 1
Page 43
Page | 43
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa A Pupa B Pupa
Control sample 1 20
0
19
1
17
3
16
4
15
5
18
2
sample 2 20
0
20
0
20
0
20
17
3
19
1 sample 3 19
1
20
0
18
2
17
3
17
3
19
1
sample 4 20
0
19
1
19
1
19
1
20
0
17
3 sample 5 20
0
19
1
19
1
16
4
17
3
19
1
Page 44
Page | 44
Mortality rates
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Shepherds P sample 1 14 2 4 6 6 8 4 8 8 2 10 8 1 10 9 1 10 9
sample 2 16 2 2 10 4 6 5 6 9 1 8 11 0 8 12
8 12
sample 3 7 3 10 6 5 9 3 5 12 0 7 13
13
7 13
sample 4 13 5 2 8 6 6 4 6 10 4 6 10 1 7 12 0 8 12
sample 5 14 3 3 8 5 3 8 7 5 2 8 10 0 8 12
8 12
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Bittercress sample 1 9 3 8 7 4 9 5 6 9 3 6 11 2 6 12 1 7 12
sample 2 20 0 0 13 1 6 6 3 11 1 5 14 0 5 15
5 15
sample 3 13 4 2 10 4 6 8 6 6 4 10 6 4 10 6 4 10 6
sample 4 16 1 3 11 4 5 9 6 5 2 9 9 2 9 9 1 10 9
sample 5 8 10 2 7 11 2 6 12 2 3 12 5 3 12 5 2 13 5
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Garlic mustard sample 1 17 3 0 14 4 2 9 6 5 8 7 5 5 10 5 5 10 5
sample 2 18 2 0 15 2 3 11 5 4 9 7 4 9 7 4 5 8 7
sample 3 13 3 1 11 3 6 8 3 9 7 3 10 5 5 10 5 5 10
sample 4 18 1 1 15 3 2 11 4 5 6 6 8 4 6 10 4 6 10
sample 5 18 1 1 14 2 4 9 4 7 9 4 7 6 4 10 6 4 10
Page 45
Page | 45
Day 1
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Tomato sample 1 18 1 1 13 2 5 8 5 7 6 5 9 5 6 9 4 7 9
sample 2 17 3 0 15 4 1 10 5 5 7 5 8 6 5 9 4 7 9
sample 3 18 2 0 15 2 3 10 2 8 6 6 8 5 7 8 5 7 8
sample 4 20 0 0 16 1 3 8 3 9 6 4 10 2 4 14 1 5 14
sample 5 18 1 1 13 2 5 8 2 10 8 2 10 7 2 11 7 2 11
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Cress sample 1 20 0 0 16 2 2 11 4 5 5 5 10 3 5 12 3 5 12
sample 2 18 2 0 14 3 3 9 4 7 6 4 10 5 5 10 4 5 11
sample 3 20 0 0 15 1 4 11 2 7 6 5 9 4 7 9 1 9 10
sample 4 18 2 0 15 3 2 12 4 4 8 5 7 5 6 9 4 7 9
sample 5 20 0 0 16 1 3 11 2 7 8 4 8 4 4 12 3 5 12
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Seeds Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died Alive Pupa Died
Control sample 1 20 0 0 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1
sample 2 20
0 19
1 19
1 18
2 18
2 17 1 2
sample 3 20 0 0 20 0 0 11 20 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 17 0 3
sample 4 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 1 19 0 1
sample 5 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 17 0 3
Page 46
Page | 46
Height records
Day Sap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SP seed only
sample 1 1 1 4 9 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 13
2 sp 2 4
sample 2 1 sp 1 3 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
2 sp 2
sample 3 1
sample 4 1 3 4 5 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
sample 5 1
1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 7 7 7 7
Day Sap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SP w/larvae
sample 1
sample 2 1 1 7 9 9 9
sample 3 1 sp sp 2 2 4
sample 4 1 sp 3 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7
2
sp 3 4 4 6 8 8 8 8 8 8
3
2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 5 6 7 8 8 9
sample 5 1 sp 3 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
2 sp 3 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
Page 47
Page | 47
Day Sap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
SP w/soil sample 1 1 1 2 4 7 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
2 1
sample 2 1 1 3 5 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
sp 3 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7
3 2 4 4 5
sample 3
4
sample 4 1 1 3 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9
sample 5 1 sp 3 4 7 8 9 9 9 9 9
Day Sap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SP w/soil+Larvae
Sample 1 1 sp 1 2 5 7 9 11 11 11 11 12
sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 1 sp 3 6 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 3
Sp = sprouting