FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

I know CPs have requirements for several different things like humidity, soil, dormancy, and temperature. Though one of the things I've been dealing with the most since I started this hobby has been light. While all of my plants are outside in mostly full sun (including D adelae, though it looks like it's going to die if I leave it out there any longer), I'm wondering in your own personal opinions, and ignoring all other requirements, which CPs require the LEAST amount of light intensity? Think north-facing windowsill, if in the northern hemisphere, or less

Drosera adelae and its Queensland sisters are (relatively) low light carnivores.

Some terrestrial Utricularia seem OK with less light than the average CP.

Other than these, my CP have all wanted lotsa, lotsa, lotsa light.

Shadowtski wrote:Drosera adelae and its Queensland sisters are (relatively) low light carnivores.

Some terrestrial Utricularia seem OK with less light than the average CP.

Other than these, my CP have all wanted lotsa, lotsa, lotsa light.

Thought so. I still find it interesting how many regular plants thrive with less than ideal amounts of light! So in your opinion, you don't think there's a possible CP out there that can thrive in the same amounts of light these regular plants use?

I don't know if it's backed up by science, but my pet theory is that carnivory is a trade-off. They get extra nutrients, but to do it they have to grow their leaves into crazy shapes that don't capture light as well. Like... it'd be just about impossible for light to hit an entire Sarracenia leaf at once, while a lot of low light houseplants have big ol flat leaves to work with.

So it makes sense to me that the classic carnivore habitat has poor soil (so it's a big advantage to catch bugs as a nitrogen supplement) and a ton of light (so it's not a big loss to grow less efficient leaves). It'd also explain why light-starved flytraps and sarrs grow trapless leaves and flatter pitchers, respectively. They're prioritizing light over trapping.

I'm sure there are exceptions though, like some of the bladderworts mentioned above.

Nepenthes Ventrata.

Damn things grow no matter what you do.

Many Mexican pings can do fine in lower light. Not a dark corner but an east window works well for a lot of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was about to say pings

Fieldofscreams wrote:Nepenthes Ventrata.

Damn things grow no matter what you do.

Haha, then it should be called Nepenthes "drosera capensis" instead

Adelae wrote:I don't know if it's backed up by science, but my pet theory is that carnivory is a trade-off. They get extra nutrients, but to do it they have to grow their leaves into crazy shapes that don't capture light as well. Like... it'd be just about impossible for light to hit an entire Sarracenia leaf at once, while a lot of low light houseplants have big ol flat leaves to work with.

So it makes sense to me that the classic carnivore habitat has poor soil (so it's a big advantage to catch bugs as a nitrogen supplement) and a ton of light (so it's not a big loss to grow less efficient leaves). It'd also explain why light-starved flytraps and sarrs grow trapless leaves and flatter pitchers, respectively. They're prioritizing light over trapping.

I'm sure there are exceptions though, like some of the bladderworts mentioned above.

Right, this makes sense, sunlight is fundamental for photosynthesis, so if they don't get enough light, carnivory is traded off for wider/bigger leaves. I guess one can assume that IF the plant naturally had wide/big leaves, it could probablydo well in low sunlight?

Adelae wrote:I don't know if it's backed up by science, but my pet theory is that carnivory is a trade-off. They get extra nutrients, but to do it they have to grow their leaves into crazy shapes that don't capture light as well. Like... it'd be just about impossible for light to hit an entire Sarracenia leaf at once,....

I would disagree with that theory. Many non-carnivorous plants which grow in high light do not have wide leaves ... like grasses which expose even less surface area to direct sunlight than a sarr. Then there are cacti and some succulents which have gone the route of doing away with leaves entirely. So don't really think that carnivory has anything to do with narrow leaves.

Here's an odd non-carnivorous plant leaf for you ... Monstera obliqua:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BiF2h3BDoEs ... e=ig_embed

But, as far as plants growing in moderate to heavy shade, broad leaves are indeed the norm.

DragonsEye wrote:I would disagree with that theory. Many non-carnivorous plants which grow in high light do not have wide leaves ... like grasses which expose even less surface area to direct sunlight than a sarr. Then there are cacti and some succulents which have gone the route of doing away with leaves entirely. So don't really think that carnivory has anything to do with narrow leaves.

But this is the point exactly - that plants in high light can afford to have narrower or reduced or even non-existent leaves, whether for carnivory or to minimize water loss.

But I’d add that when any plant is deprived of its normal light requirements, the response is etiolation (elongated, thin stems and leaves). In a plant like Sarracenia or Dionaea, it’s mostly not going to do much good unless it’s only a temporary situation, because there is no way for the growing point to get much closer. Otherwise the plant just dies. But for a vining plant like Nepenthes, it does make sense since it will not be able to metabolize nutrients if it can’t photosynthesize. Consider even the development of Monstera (of any species): The first leaves are almost always entire, but not too big, with ample space between nodes. The priority is to find a tree and climb up it. Once it gets into the sun, it’s getting more energy and begins to make the characteristic large leaves. The holes and slits help prevent the leaves from tearing in the wind they’re now exposed to. In the case of a Nepenthes outcompeting it’s neighbors for sun, it’s helpful. For a Sarracenia, etiolation with less efficient trapping might still help it poke through encroaching shrubs and survive until a fire came through and burned away that competition. (Indeed forest fire suppression is a major factor in the threatened status of S. oreophila.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huntsmanshorn wrote:Utricularia calycifida could probably survive on a North facing window.

Survive, maybe, but would it thrive? I had my calycifida on a west facing window, and while it was okay, I wouldn't say that it was thriving. Now it's outside in mostly full sun, and it's growing like crazy

EDIT: I just realized that "survive" is the point of this point, not necessarily thrive