BioBlitz Report

We “blitzed” two sites in Panama. At the first site we made a checklist of plants, insects, and birds. At the second we counted trees and shrubs and made a grid map of the plants. I’ll look at the similarities and differences in plants at the two sites and then I’ll present the data that are unique to each site.

I like to start a report like this with a sense of where we are. Here’s a Google Earth snapshot of Panama with the two sites nearly overlapping. If you can barely make this out, click on the image for a larger view.

Once it’s clear that we’re in Panama, the second most important piece of information is that we’re on the side of a mountain, Volcan Baru.

The dark green and brown area in the upper left portion of the image is Volcan Barú. Site 1 (BioBlitz Panama 1) is a wooded area at an elevation of 1128 meters, and Site 2 (BioBlitz Panama 2) is an abandoned pasture, now mowed, at an elevation of 737 meters.

Site 1 (20m x 20m) is above the village of Potrerillos Arriba and is reached by way of an uncertain road. No pictures were taken at the site. To give a sense of the trees and shrubs that grow there, here’s a collection of images from the web and my own that represent the species (in most cases) and genera (in some cases) found at the site. Scrolling over the thumbnails will reveal the common name and the Genus of the plant.

Site 2 (20m x 20m) is below the village of Potrerillos Arriba and is an abandoned pasture. No trees or shrubs more than 1 m in height were removed from this area (or any of the surrounding area) when the property was purchased. Smaller shrubs were cleared by machete. Site 2 and the surrounding area are maintained by mowing and, where too rocky to mow, by weed-eater or machete.

Here are the trees and shrubs found at site 2. One small tree, the monkey pod or vaina de mono (Samana saman), was planted. All the rest are trees or shrubs that were growing here at the time the property was purchased.

Similarities and Differences in Plants at the Two Sites

A total of 33 plants were recognized by common name at both sites, 21 at Site 1 and 14 at Site 2. The sites had only two plants in common: the macano (“billy club” or “truncheon” – a tree with sturdy wood, often used for fence posts – the one pictured is between 1 and 2 years old)

and mangle de montaña (“mountain mangrove” – a member of the tea family native to southeast Asia and North America – note the slender aerial roots, reminiscent of mangroves, extending from a branch on the left side of the trunk to the ground).

That these were the only two plants in common is, I’m sure, by chance. For instance, the guarumo (Cecropia peltata) found at Site 1 also grows in the area around Site 2. It simply wasn’t in the 20m x 20m grid.

The complete list is here:

Only one plant was unidentified with respect to its scientific name at Site 1 – and for that one the family was known. Four plants were unidentified with respect to scientific names at Site 2. Until the identification process is complete, which may take some time, it is not possible to know how the sites differed regarding number of plant families represented. At present, 14 families were represented at Site 1 and 7 at Site 2. Even if each of the remaining plants at Site 2 represented a different family, the maximum possible number of families at Site 2 would be 11 families.

So, in comparing the two sites, the wooded area had more kinds of plants, and more plant families represented, in a 20m x 20m plot than did the abandoned pasture. Considering that the sample sizes are small, and that there is just one sample from each area, it’s no doubt stretching a great deal to try to draw conclusions from these comparisons. Nevertheless, both elevation and soil type are likely factors that could influence these differences: elevation because there’s generally a higher annual rainfall and cooler average temperatures at the higher elevations (there’s nearly a 400 m difference in elevation between the two sites) and soil type because of the history of the abandoned pastureland. Previous to being grazed, the land was used for raising sugar cane for a number of years, which would have ferociously depleted the existing nutrients.

Data Unique to Each Site

Site 1. Checklists of insects (9), birds (11), and reptiles (6) were compiled at Site 1. For those to whom the Spanish common name means something, here’s the list. I’ll provide English translations later.

Site 2. We laid out a 20m x 20m grid, sectioned in 5m x 5m quadrats.

We measured the distance between each tree or shrub and two perpendicular sides of the quadrat. We recorded the quadrat number, the local common name, and the distance (in centimeters) to the two closest perpendicular sides of the quadrat. We ignored the small shoots of assorted small plants at the base of each tree or shrub.

We then plotted the data on graph paper.

The most numerous trees were the nance (Byrsonima crassifolia) (11),

one of the canillo trees (Miconia rubiginosa) (7),

the other canillo tree (Miconia sp.) (5),

and the palo blanco (unidentified scientific name) (4).

All other species were represented by only one or two plants.

Here’s the map of all data from this site (South is at the top of the map, North at the bottom):

The palo blancos were in the upper two rows of quadrats, the canillos were in the two right columns plus one canillo in quadrat V, and the nances were scattered throughout. I doubt that anything can be made of this, but I found it interesting that the distribution of the canillos had a diagonal trend (NE-SW – remember that South is a the top of the map) and the palo blancos had an East-West trend.

The data from this grid will be saved and the study repeated next year. Meantime, those very interesting “unidentified” plants will be worked up. Worth a separate study, I believe, would be a close look at the shoots that grow up around the bases of the trees.

So that’s it. A simple baseline of trees and shrubs from two sites on Volcan Barú in Chiriqui, Panama. I’m already thinking about how to build on this information next year. If it weren’t for the snakes, it would be great to lay out the grid at Site 1 as well. We’ll see. Until later, then, hasta luego!