PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Plants thrive under abiotic factors as sunlight, pH, moisture, temperature oxygen and

minderal nutrients. The species of the Drosera capillaris (Sundew) group found in North and

South America and Trinidad has certain factors needed to grow. In order to reach a conclusion

on the distribution of Sundew, certain experiments were done such as testing the pH of the soil

and the pH of water, the water content of the soil, the humus content and observing the

particle distribution of the soil.

Page | 1
 Aim

To measure some of the physico- chemical characteristics of Aripo’s open savanna ( pH

of soil and water, water content, humus content and soil particle distribution) and assess their

potential biological significance as a population indicator for the carnivorous Sundew plant

(Drosera capillaris)

Page | 2
 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

 WHERE- The data was collected at the The Aripo Savanna Scientific Reserve (A.S.S.R):

savanna one. This Reserve is located in St. Andrew on the east central portion of the Caroni

Plain of Trinidad between the towns of Arima and Sangre Grande, (10 35N,61 12’W) The

savanna is bounded on the north by the Valencia River, on the south by a disused railway

line on the west by the Aripo River and on the east by the Eastern Main Road Valencia. It is

located within the Long Stretch Forest Reserve.

 WHEN- The data was collected on Thursday 23rd January, 2014 from 10:00 am to 1:00

pm

 HOW: The class was broken up into groups of three before arriving at the study site.

This was done in order to give students in each groups specific tasks.

At the open savannah, a transect line was pulled across the savanna at length

160m and width 70m. The area within the transect line was divided into four sites (40 m

in length and 70 m in width).

At these four sites, quadrats were thrown randomly in order to obtain the

distribution of the Sundew plant.

Page | 3
 Also, three samples of soil were taken at different points of each site. This was

done by digging ten inches into the soil with a shovel. Each sample was placed in a

Ziploc bag and labeled accordingly.

Water samples from each site were obtained. These water samples were stored

in plastic containers, sealed and labeled accordingly.

A fifth site was also investigated: marsh forest. The area investigated was 100 m

in length. The number of Sundew was noticeably absent. Instead the area was

dominated by tree. At this site the distribution of different tree species (Olivier, Moriche

Palm, Cocorite and Cajuca). The sites were also observed and photographs were taken

of the sites, their surrounding and the samples.

When all the samples were collected, they were taken back to the school where

they were stored in the lab until the tests were to be carried out.

Page | 4
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Waugh (2009) defines a “savannah” as a natural and stable ecosystem occurring under

a tropical climate, having a relatively continuous layer of xeromorphic grasses and sedges, and

often with a discontinuous layer of low trees and shrubs.

According to the Cropper Foundation (2000), the Aripo Savanna is described as a ‘hyper

seasonal savannah.’ This type of savannah is found in regions where rainwater accumulates or

rivers overflow. The soil type is clay that is slow draining which causes flooding for nearly the

entire rainy season but may be dry at a depth o 2-3 feet (0.5-1.0m) due to the presence of an

impermeable clay layer near the surface. When the dry season begins the soil drys out rapidly

crack hardens and eventually suffer totally water shortage.

The Aripo Savanna Scientific Reserve (ASSR) experiences a seasonal tropical climate. The

average rainfall of the area is about 2500mm. In the wet season the monthly average is over

250mm. In the dry season the rainfall averages 50 to 100mm per month. The temperature

remains relatively stable throughout the year at a maximum of 20-25ºC. Maximum

temperature tend to be higher in the dry season due to higher rates of insulation and minimum

temperatures tend to be lower due to higher rates of nocturnal radiation of heat.

Aripo Savannas are hyper seasonal as they are subjected to alternating periods of

extensive water logging and desiccation every year. The cause of the poor drainage in the open

Page | 5
Aripo Savannas is an impervious layer of clay or silty clay 20 to 45cm below the surface of the

soil known as the claypan. Rainwater falling on the surface of the open savannas is absorbed by

the upper surface of the soil, and then percolates downwards until it reaches the impermeable

clay pan which acts like an impenetrable wall preventing the passage of water molecules. The

area between the soil surface ant the clay pan quickly becomes saturated and therefore all

additional rainwater falling on the soil surface cannot be absorbed and causes water logging.

(Bacon 1978) stated the “the Sundew” is carnivorous. It obtains nutrients and nitrogen in

particular from the digestion of insects and small invertebrates. The leaves of the Drosera

capillaris are covered with tentacles each bearing at the tip a gland, which secretes a sticky

substance. Any insect or small invertebrate that touches the tentacles is held fasts and its

struggles stimulate the other tentacles to bend over and secure it. The plant then secretes

digestive juices from the leaves onto the prey. These juices contain powerful digestive enzymes

that are capable of penetrating and dissolving the hard exoskeleton of insects. Afterwards the

liquid products are absorbed.

Page | 6
MAP OF TRINIDAD SHOWING LOCATION
OF STUDY SITE

Page | 7
SITE MAP SHOWING STUDY AREA

Page | 8
 DATA PRESENTATION

This section deals with the results from the investigations that were carried out (pH of

soil and water, water content, humus/ organic content, soil particle distribution and species

distribution) There are also calculations to represents how these figures were derived. The

results are represented via tables bars and charts.

Page | 9
 SUNDEW DISTRIBUTION AT FOUR SITES

TABLE SHOWING SUNDEW DISTRIBUTION AT THE FOUR SITES

SITE NUMBER OF SUNDEW

1 24
2 18
3 12
4 4

SITE 4 4

SITE 3 12

SUNDEW

SITE 2 18

SITE 1 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

GRAPH SHOWING SUNDEW DISTRIBUTION AT THE FOUR SITES

Site one had the most amount of Sundew (24) while site four had the least (4.) The

amount of Sundew decreased from 25 then to 18, then 12 and lastly, 4, as the sites came closer

Page | 10
to the marsh land. The Sundew was in abundance at the first site unlike other plants species

while the least amount of Sundew at site four was surrounded by large quantities of other plant

species. It can be seen by the result the Sundew grew in areas where there was less vegetation

and tended to be in a small quantity closer to the marsh forest which is filled with different tree

species.

Page | 11
 SOIL pH

TABLES SHOWING THE pH OF SOIL SAMPLE FROM FOUR DIFFERENT SITES

SITE pH
1 6.3
2 6.5
3 6.5
4 6.9

7
6.9
6.9

6.8

6.7

6.6
6.5 6.5
6.5
pH
6.4
6.3
6.3

6.2

6.1

6
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

GRAPH SHOWING THE pH OF SOIL SAMPLES AT FOUR SITES

Page | 12
 The pH of the soil increased at each site from 6.3-6.9. At site one, the pH was 6.3 but at

each site the pH increased a little (6.3, 6.5, 6.5, 6.9); at site four the pH was 6.9 which was the

highest. This is to suggest that when getting closer to the marsh land, the soil becomes more

neutral. As the amount of hydrogen ions in the soil increases, the soil pH decreases, thus

becoming more acidic. Water is made of hydrogen ions therefore there is less water getting

closer to the marsh land. This could be due to increasing vegetation close to the marsh. The

plants absorb the water and also interception which prohibits the water from being absorbed

into the soil.

Page | 13
 SOIL pH

TABLE SHOWING THE pH OF WATER SAMPLES FROM FOUR DIFFERENT SITES

SITE pH
1 5.3
2 5.7
3 6.0
4 5.7

6.2

6
6

5.8
5.7 5.7

5.6

pH of water
5.4
5.3

5.2

4.8
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

BAR GRAPH SHOWING THE pH OF WATER SAMPLES FROM FOUR

DIFFERENT SITES

The pH of the water also increased when getting closer to the marsh land the lowest
was 5.3 and the highest was at 6.0. There was a gradual increase in the pH: 5.3 to 5.7 to 6.

Page | 14
 WATER CONTENT OF SOIL

TABLE SHOWING INITIAL MASS OF SOIL SAMPLES

INITIAL MASS (g) OF SAMPLES

SITE A B C
1 80.184 80.169 80.096
2 80.795 82.873 79.96
3 80.179 80.160 80.39
4 85.349 80.180 80.472

TABLE SHOW MASS OF SOIL SAMPLES AFTER DESSICATION

FINAL MASS (g) OF SAMPLES

SITE A B C
1 71.239 71.157 66.618
2 70.524 72.874 69.176
3 69.042 66.922 69.176
4 72.460 69.320 70.430

The soil samples masses did decease after burring suggesting that there was water

present. The difference in mass ranged from 10 to 19. This suggests that there was a fair

amount of water in the soil which was due to the soil type being clay. Clay soil drains poorly

there water would not be lost easily.

Page | 15
TABLE SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF SOIL THAT CONTAINED WATER

PERCENTAGE OF WATER IN SOIL (%)

SITE A B C
1 22.24 22.40 33.54
2 25.13 23.30 25.15
3 27.70 32.92 27.70
4 28.37 30.42 24.76

40

35 33.54 32.92
30.42
30 28.37
27.7 27.7
25.13 25.15 24.76
25 23.3
22.24 22.4
SAMPLE A
20
SAMPLE B

15 SAMPLE C

10

0
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

BAR GRAPH SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF WATER IN SOIL

Page | 16
Finding the Mean (AVERAGE):

Where x stands for an observed value,

n stands for the number of observations in the data set, 

x stands for the sum of all observed x values

x̅ stands for the mean value of x.

e.g: SITE ONE: x̅ = 22.24 +22.40 + 33.54

= 26.06

30

28.9
29
28.3
28

27

26.06 PERCENTAGE OF WATER IN

26 SOIL
25.2
25

24

23
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

BAR GRAPH SHOWING MEAN (AVERAGE) PERCENTAGE OF WATER IN SOIL

SAMPLES

Page | 17
 The percentage of water in the soil varied at the different sites. The site with the least

water was at site two: 25.20 % while site four has the most amount of water: 28.90 % The

amount of water changed from 26.06 deceased to 24.20 then increased to 28.30 and finally

increased to 28.90.

Page | 18
 HUMUS CONTENT OF SOIL

TABLE SHOWING MASS OF SOIL SAMPLES BEFORE AND AFTER BURNING

SITE MASS OF CRUCIBLE (g) INITIAL MASS (g) FINAL MASS (g)
1
A 42.866 52.445 52.187
B 39.702 69.941 69.758
C 41.486 74.821 74.420
2
A 29.661 62.004 60.502
B 30.532 58.625 57.791
C 30.005 66.448 60.177
3
A 29.661 62.004 60.502
B 30.532 58.625 57.791
C 30.055 66.448 60.177
4
A 38.970 66.248 65.996
B 33.531 61.656 61.305
C 42.780 61.589 61.084

Page | 19
 80 69.941
74.821 75.057
70 74.42
66.448 61.656
66.248
69.758 62.004 55.443
60 74.691 61.589
58.62560.177
55.884 65.996 61.305
52.445 60.502 61.084
50 57.791
52.187 38.495
40 38.504 INITIAL

30 FINAL

20

10

0
SITE 1 ASITE 1 BSITE 1 CSITE 2 ASITE 2 BSITE 2 CSITE 3 ASITE 3 BSITE 3 CSITE 4 ASITE 4 BSITE 4 C

LINE GRAPH SHOWING MASS OF SOIL SAMPLES BEFORE AND AFTER

BURNING

As seen in the line graph there was not a large change in the mass after burning the soil

the biggest change occurred at site two which seemed to decrease by 6. There was hardly a

change at site one. The only changes occurred at site two. At site one as seen in the graph there

was not a great different in mass (sample A was 0.258 g, sample B was 0.183 g and sample C

was 0.401 g).Site two mass were greater (sample A was 1.502 g, sample B was 0.834 g and

sample C was 6.271 g) At site three the difference was just as small as site one (sample A was

0.441 g, sample B was 0.009 g and sample C was 0.366 g). Site four did not have a large

difference (sample A was 0.252 g, sample B was 0.351 g and sample C was 0.505 g)

Page | 20
 TABLE SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF HUMUS CONTENT

SITE PERCENTAGE OF HUMUS IN SOIL (%)

A B C
1 2.693 0.603 1.202
2 4.643 2.968 1.231
3 0.745 4.239 0.752
4 0.923 1.248 2.616

5
4.643
4.5
4.239
4

3.5

3 2.968
2.693 2.616 SAMPLE A
2.5
SAMPLE B
2
SAMPLE C
1.5
1.202 1.231 1.248
1 0.923
0.5 0.603 0.752
0.745
0
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

LINE GRAPH SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF HUMUS CONTENT IN SOIL

SAMPLES

Page | 21
 3.5

3 2.9

2.5

2 1.9
1.6
1.5 PERCENTAGE OF HUMUS
1.5

0.5

0
SITE1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

BAR GRAPH SHOWING THE AVERAGE HUMUS CONTENT OF EACH SAMPLE

The site with the least amount of humus was site one (1.5) and the site with the most

was two (2.9). Unlike the other test there was not a gradual increase as the site came closer to

the marsh land. It can also be seen that there was not a lot of humus at any of the sites which

suggest little plant growth.

Page | 22
 SOIL PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION

TABLE SHOWING SOIL PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION

LAYERS SITE
1 2 3 4
GRAVEL 1 cm 1cm 1cm 1cm
CLAY SOIL 3 cm 5 cm 3 cm 3 cm
SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER 5cm 4cm 5cm 5cm
HUMUS 1cm 0cm 1cm 1cm

12

10 0
1 1 1

8 4
HUMUS
5 5 5
6 SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER
CLAY SOIL

4 GRAVEL
5
3 3 3
2

1 1 1 1
0
SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4

GRAPH SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SOIL SAMPLE LAYERS

The amount of water seems to be prevalent while the humus is very little or has none at

all as in site two. The amount of water ranges from 4-5 cm where there is silt suspended in it.

The soil ranges from3- 5, site two having the most and gravel being 1 cm in all of the sites

Page | 23
 1
1

GRAVEL
CLAY SOIL
3
SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER
5 HUMUS

PIE CHART SHOWING THE LAYERS OF SOIL SAMPLE AT SITE ONE

4 GRAVEL
CLAY SOIL
SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER
HUMUS
5

PIE CHART SHOWING THE LAYERS OF THE SOIL SAMPLE FORM SITE

Page | 24
 1 1

GRAVEL
3 CLAY SOIL
SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER
5
HUMUS

PIE CHART SHOWING THE LAYERS OF THE SOIL SAMPLE FROM SITE 3

1
1

GRAVEL
CLAY SOIL
3
SILT SUSPENDED IN WATER
HUMUS
5

PIE CHART SHOWING THE LAYERS OF THE SOIL SAMPLE AT SITE 4

Page | 25
 At site one there was 1 cm of gravel, 3 cm of clay soil. 4cm of silt suspended in water

and 1 cm of humus. At site two there was also 1 cm of gravel but four cm of clay soil and 4 cm

of silt suspended din water. There was no humus present at site two. At site three there was 1

cm of gravel, 3 cm of clay soil, 5 cm of silt suspended in water and 1 cm of humus. The same

amounts form site three was also at site four.

Page | 26
 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The Sundew’s growth pattern is influenced by the physic-chemical characteristics of the

Aripo Open Savanna such as the pH of the soil and water, the humus content, the water

content of the soil and the soil particle distribution.

The pH of soil ranged from 6.3-6.9 therefore nutrients are absorbed easily. But there are

not many plants to being with. This pH makes it easier for the plants to absorb the nutrients in

the soil. Clay soils are naturally acidic but the pH of the sample was slightly acidic, leading to a

more neutral state. A pH range of approximately 6 to 7 promotes the most ready accessibility of

plant nutrients. Therefore only nutrients already dissolved in the soil is absorbed. There is a lack

of dissolved nutrients so there would not be a lot of plant growth in those areas. The Sundew

varied in distribution at the four sites. It decreased as it got to site four. This is because the

Sundew obtains its nutrients from insect and not the much from the soil. The Sundew does not

need to grow where there are a lot of nutrient in the soil because it obtains its nutrients

another way. Also because of the lack of nutrients having an effect on the amount of plant

species that grow in that area, there would be less competition for other resources. The

Sundew would be able to survive and flourish better.

The water samples ranged from 5.3 to 6.0 which suggest that the water was slightly

acidic. Plants would be able to get nutrients as the pH is closer to neutral. The pH increased as it

got closer to site four: the marsh forest. Fewer plants were seen at site one (5.3) than at site

Page | 27
four (6.0). It can be noted that the more neutral the water in the site, the more vegetation was

seen because the plants would have more access to the available nutrients in the soil.

Therefore it can be seen that the Sundew plant was more abundant at site one than site four.

The lack of nutrients in the soil at one has more sundew than that at four

The water content in the soil ranged from 22.23% to 35.54% of the total soil content.

Since the soil is a clay profile there is poor drainage. The soil seemed to be water logged and

therefore plants would not be able to survive in that condition. This can suggests why there

were so few plants at the different sites. At site four however, it was closer to the marsh forest

and there were more vegetation there so there were enough plants to absorb the water in the

soil. There were fewer sundews closer to the marsh forest than at site one that was further

away.

The humus content at all the sites was very more. This suggests that there are very few

plant species at these sites. This is due to the conditions above. Not a lot of plant death and not

a lot of plant growth. Less humus meant fewer nutrients can be dissolved into the soil. If there

is less organic matter then there would be less plant growth since there is a lack of nutrients.

The less competition the Sundew has the better it would be able to survive. Also, the Sundew

does not need all the nutrient form the soil because it obtains it elsewhere: insects.

Page | 28
 CONCLUSION

The Drosera capillaris is able to grow in the Aripo Savannah because of the conditions.

The soils of the Aripo Savanna have a change in nutrients due to the pH of soil and water and

therefore the sundew has found other means of obtaining these nutrients, the water content

seems to also affect plants living conditions there but the sundew has adapted and grows well.

Even thought the humus content is low the Sundew still grows at the different sites, though in

some areas more than others. The pH of soil does affect the plant growth because it affects the

amount of nutrients. Due to the acidity in the soil, the nutrients were not available which

suggests why there were few plants. More plants tend to grow where they can obtain nutrients

which are determined by pH. The availability of nutrients in the soil is different in some sites

than other because of the acidity or alkalinity of the water. The water pH therefore affects the

amount and types of plants that grow. Due to the soil type being clay, water is poorly drained.

The soil becomes water logged and makes it difficult for certain plants to flourish. The first layer

of soil is humus. This soil has little humus which suggests there is little organic matter being

formed. This is due to the lack of plants and animal. The humus does release nutrients and

therefore plants need it to survive.

recommendation

Page | 29
RECOMMENDATIONS

Page | 30
 BIBLIOGRAHY

BOOKS
 Bradfield,Phil,Steve Potter, Mydar Ramesar. Longman Biology

Harlow, Essex: Pearson Longman, 2004, Print.

 Wagner, Travis, and Robert M. Sanford. Environmental Science: Active

Learning Laboratories and Applied Problem Sets. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.

 Ramsaroop, Navindra. Environmental Science for the Caribbean. Gulf View, LA

Romaine, Trinidad W.I.: Caribbean Educational, 2011. Print.

 Wilson, Mark. The Caribbean Environement. N.p.: Oxford, n.d. Print.

WEBSITES

 "Clay Soils." / Royal Horticultural Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

<http://apps.rhs.org.uk/advicesearch/profile.aspx?PID=620>.

 Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://www.infoplease.com/cig/science

-fair-projects/does-ph-water-affect-growth-bean-plants.html>.

 "Soil PH." Princeton University. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Page | 31
 <http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Soil_pH.html>.

 "Types of Soil - Clay, Sandy, Silt, Acidic, Alkaline." Types of Soil - Clay, Sandy, Silt,

Acidic, Alkaline. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.provident-living-

today.com/Types-of-Soil.html>.

Page | 32