Lab Observations 5

Made: 11.12.13.

    Today was the last official day of lab observation for the botany term project. However, after the discoveries made in mine, it would be tough to throw out.
      At first, the aquarium seemed just as bleak as it was last time, however, there is still much life to be found! While it's true that most of the previous organisms I had been seeing are now dead (such as the Cyclops sp.), many are still enjoying life in the tank (Rainis and Russell, 1996). Familiar organisms cited today were:  Coleps sp. (Rainis and Russell 1996),  Philodina sp. (Pennack 1953), Euchlanis sp.(Pennack 1953), Tachysoma sp (Patterson 1996), and  Acanthinocystis sp. (Patterson 2003), the last of whom have probably doubled in amount, they're everywhere! I was able to observe Philodina sp. especially nicely today. It resembled a caterpillar in both appearance and gait as it walked along the stem of one of the plants in the tank (Pennack 1953). Additionally, I saw quite a few diatoms, though specific identification wasn't made. They were interesting. We have just learned in class about their silica composed cell wall and I find them to be beautiful creatures. The specimens I noted were long, tubular, rod-shaped, and green tinted. There were many connected together in a long chain.
       Also, I think it should be noted that the water level in my was tank noticeably lower than in other times. I don't know if this is evaporation due to the recently activated heating system, or maybe it was knocked over. Regardless, I don't think it had an effect on the organisms in the tank. Since most of them are dead, it's unlikely there's much competition for resources. The dead organisms have seemed to have actually INCREASED resources in the tank, at least food wise. This is just my theory since I don;t know where the bacteria came from nor how long they'd been there, only that they were in and around dead skeletons and attracting plenty of predatory protista, ready to eat them. The bacteria and dead organisms they accompany were especially notable in the prongs and rhizobia of Fontanalis sp., which is particularly nasty and debris covered like the other green plants in the tank (McFarland 2013). Rhizobia, we learned in lab, are structures resembling roots that mosses use to secure themselves and obtain nutrients, as they lack proper vascular and rooting system common in higher plants. (Cook & McFarland 2013). This area was home to other (living) organisms as well, probably feeders themselves.
         One concentrated area of bacteria was found gathered around what appeared to be a long hyphae. Dr. McFarland originally thought it to be a water mold or a slime mold, but this proved to be false. A true identification was never found, and we ended up lovingly naming it "Aquatic Hyphae". I've captured a video of it below.
                                                                   
      You can see a steady movement within the hyphae, implying it is undivided and thus coencyctic (or lacking septa). Also, there are a couple of small organisms in the video hanging around the hyphae. The organism ere really attracted to it, and this leads my to hypothesize more. Perhaps the bacteria found around this hyphae are symbiotic with the Aquatic Hyphae and since the organisms in my tank eat the bacteria, the attraction of the organisms to the hyphae is purely to eat.  The Aquatic Hyphae was very long, nearly the length of my whole tank and had several branches and turns. It's end was found to be in the debris of the bottom and therefore untraceable. The "nubs"  protruding from the hyphae are unclear to us as well. Are they for reproduction? Who knows?
        The Aquatic hyphae wasn't the only new organism sited today. Two Amoeba sp., differing drastically were noted as well (Patterson, 1996). One of which I've captured in Fig 1. It was later further identified as Amoeba centropyxs (Patterson 1996).

Fig. 1. Amoeba  centropxys. shown with foot (Patterson 1996).

        Notice the little protruding foot, which it uses to move itself since it does't have cilia (Patterson, 1989). Both of the Amoeba sp. moved in a slow, slimy, sliding motions (Patterson 1996).The unpictured  specimen looked like a typical cartoon depiction of  a "germ". They were very interesting (as is everything).                                                                 I have saved discussing growth of the Craspedacusta sp. for last (Pennack 1989). It was the first thing I went to upon viewing my tank and I had to pry myself away from it in order to properly take notes (I even came back after my chemistry class). It has definitely grown and has three defined polyps now, perhaps four. Excitingly, it has seems to have grown what appears to be a medusa!

Fig. 2. Craspedacusta sp. In the top left,
     a budding medusa protrudes (Pennack 1989).

          This means it is budding! Soon the medusa will detach.When it detaches it will grow into a young hyroid (jellyfish-like) organism that can be 2mm (Pennack 1989). The spawn of a medusa does not happen on every polyp and is instead sporadic/random  (Pennack 1989). This is very fascinating and makes me feel special. The Craspedacusta sp. was very motionless (for the most part) yet again (Pennack 1989).  However, using the dissecting microscope, which gave us a more defined picture, movement was noted (McFarland 2013). I also was able to see the cilia on one of the poms move in assumable response to Coleps sp. feeding on bacteria surround them (Rainis and Russell 1996). I am very curious as to why bacteria were swarming around the poms. They were also viewable inside the budding medusa. Curious. Dr. McFarland and Marisol (and myself) were very excited about the progression of the Craspedacusta sp. and its budding medusa (Pennack 1989). I believe I will be able to keep observing the tank until the end of the semester. This may be the end of the term project, but perhaps I will post more pictures of the Craspedacusta sp. if the tank is indeed kept for observation (Pennack 1989).

     

Fig. 3. In high definition, Craspedacusta
sp. is shown (Pennack 1989).

            

                                                                                                            

Lab Observations 4

Made: 11.5.13.
        Things in the aquarium are getting bleak. Upon viewing my MicroAquarium today, it was clear that a lot of the life previous filling the tank is now dead. The food pellet has virtually dissolved, taking with it the activity and business of last week, especially around the plant samples, which are covered in little debris particles. It looked deserted. I looked at my microscope for a long time before seeing any movement besides the small organisms such as Coleps sp. that are always around, and even those were notably decreased (Rainis & Russell 1996) . Due to the lack of activity and age of my aquarium, I looked in the debris at the bottom, and finally noticed definite dead organisms. I also never saw any of the same organisms, save for a few Cyclops sp. samples, including a juvenile, some Vorticella sp. (in their clusters) (Rainis & Russell 1996), and either two or three samples of Euchlanis sp. (Pennack 1953) . It is unclear if any of these were ones I viewed in previous lab sessions. It is safe to say the the number of most of my organisms have went down, though eventually, new types of organisms were sited.
          The behaviors and physical appearance of organisms I have already identified maintained constant in that the organisms moved and looked the same as before. I even saw a couple of organisms with the naked eye again and, as before, was unable to "catch" them with the microscope, though I believe them to be Cyclops sp. samples (Rainis & Russell 1996). However, each new organism discovered today was interesting, and makes me question why they appear at this stage of the aquarium's life, when all else seems to be dying. Of those viewed today the most interesting has to be the discovery of Craspedascuata sp., featured in Figures 1&2, which stirred up a lot of curiosity (Pennack 1989).

Fig. 1. Shows colony of  Craspedacusta sp.
with two poms. (Pennack 1989). 

Fig 2. Shows Craspedacusta sp.
in polyp form (Pennack 1989).

      When I first found it I thought it might be some sort of basidiomycete, as it's structure reminded me of a toadstool with typical pilus/gill formation. It was residing on the side of the Fontanalis sp., wasn't moving, and appeared to go through the plant (McFarland 2013). It had poms on either end and another slightly above. It was multi-cellular and the pattern of it cells seemed to indicate it had plant cells almost. Dr. McFarland looked under the microscope and even he could not identify it. It took much questioning and referencing to identify the organism correctly and it was mistaken for many things. However, eventually we discovered a hopeful contestant, Craspedacusta sp., a jelly-fish like organism that will form a polyp by sexual reproduction via budding (Pennack 1989). The figures presented bore resemblance and made me hopeful that one of the little poms was in fact, a budding polyp in the make. To be sure our observations were correct, I searched the web for more information on this species. I have referenced two cool depictions of the Craspedacusta sp. (Pennack 1989), including one of it's life cycles, in figures 3 & 4. I also learned from this site that the medusa have been shown to ingest different zooplanktons (Branson 2009). This is a little sad because my tank is already barren and I'm afraid the jellyfish will finish it off.

Fig 3. Shows a colony of Craspedacusta sp.
and budding medusa. (Branson, 2009).

Fig. 4. Shows Craspedacusta sp. life cycles,
including sexual which produces medusa (Branson, 2009).

            Besides the discovery of  the Craspedacusta sp., some other really neat organisms were quite abundant in the aquarium (Pennack 1989). The creatures I am speaking of are small, circular bodied organisms with many spike looking protrusions, much like a little sunburst or some kind of cuckle burr. I have documented a picture of Acanthinocystis sp. (Fig. 5) specifically, but there were many of this same type of organism throughout the tank. They were located mostly around the plant life, which Dr. McFarland noted meant they were hanging around for food. The Acanthinocystis sp. displayed a very still movement (as did all types of these organisms) and is shown below (Patterson, 2003). At least two of the Acanthinocystis sp. were viewed today. The spikes, according to Dr. McFarland, are used to capture and absorb/digest organisms.

Fig. 5. Shows Acanthinocystis sp. with long spiky protrusions (Patterson, 2003)

            Last but not least, I took note of at least two Diffluglia sp. (Patterson, 2003). One of which was growing and living and the side of the Fontinalis sp. (McFarland 2013). They had very slight, slow, drifting movements, and tended to sick to stem of the Fontinalis sp. (McFarland 2013).
           Also observed today were many structures called "rhizoids" which grow off of the plants in the tank. They look almost worm-like and I ended up confusing one for another Craspedacusta sp. at first. (Pennack 1989). Most of the movement of the day took place in the bottom of the tank, though organisms were observed near the plant sample (middle of the tank) as well. My aquarium contains both multi-cellular organisms, like the Craspedacusta sp., and unicellular organisms (Pennack 1989). Many of the organisms I viewed today were stationary, either because they were well...dead, or, as in the case of the sunburst organisms  like Acanthinocystis sp., they just didn't seem to be MOVING and instead sat mostly still (Patterson 2003).