, Volume 179, Issue 1, pp 32–42 | Cite as

On the mechanism of trap closure of Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula Ellis)

  • Dieter Hodick
  • Andreas Sievers


The rapid trap closure of Dionaea muscinula Ellis has been explained by either a loss of turgor pressure of the upper epidermis, which should thus become flexible, or by a sudden acid-induced wall loosening of the motor cells. According to our experiments both explanations are doubtful. Objections against the turgor mechanism come from the determination by extracellular measurements from the upper epidermis of action-potential amplitudes before and after trap closure. Neither time course nor amplitude of the action potentials are altered by trap closure. In contrast a rise in the apoplastic concentration of K+ or Na+, which are the only ions present in the trap in osmotically significant concentrations, from 1 to 10 mM reduces the action-potential amplitudes by 25% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, after trap closure the upper epidermal cells retain a considerable cell sap osmolality of 0.41 mol·kg-1 which equals that of the mesophyll cells as determined by incipient plasmolysis. A sudden cell-wall acidification causing movement is improbable since an acidification of the apoplast from pH 6 to pH 4 reduces action-potential amplitudes by 33% whereas the amplitudes measured extracellylarly from the mesophyll and lower epidermis remain unchanged by trap closure. In addition, buffering the apoplast at pH 6 does not prevent movement in traps which have been incised several times from the margin to the midrib to facilitate buffer diffusion into the mesophyll. Even an alkalinization of cell walls of plasmolysed leaf segments to pH 9 does not prevent considerable extensions of the mesophyll and subsequent movement of the specimens during deplasmolysis.

These experiments make it very likely that the mesophyll cells are already extensible but are kept compressed in the open trap, thus developing tissue tension. The mechanism which prevents their extension as long as the trap is open can so far only be explained for traps which have been paralysed by a long-term incubation in 1 mM La3+. Leaf strips taken from stimulated, closed traps, comprising the lower epidermis and some mesophyll, prove to be highly extensible if they are stretched perpendicular to the midrib on a constant-load extensiometer. By contrast, strips taken from the lower side of paralysed traps are as rigid as those from the upper side of both stimulated and paralysed traps. From observations of semithin cross sections in a polarizing microscope, it is concluded that the extensibilities of these tissue strips are mainly determined by the cell walls of the upper epidermis plus a layer of adjacent mesophyll and by the lower epidermis, respectively, since these are the only cell walls with a preferential microfibril orientation in the direction of the applied stress.

Key words

Action potential (DionaeaCell wall (extensibility, texture) Dionaea Leal movement (Dionaea



membrane potential


surface potential


2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashida, J. (1934) Studies on the leaf movement of Aldrovanda vesiculosa. Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imp. Univ. Ser. B 9, 141–244Google Scholar
  2. Ashida, J. (1939) Thermal stimulation and thermal adaption of Aldrovanda leaves, with a note on cold-rigor. Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imn Univ. Ser. B 14, 353–385Google Scholar
  3. Batalin, A. (1877) Mechanik der Bewegungen der insektenfressenden Pflanzen. Flora 60, 105–111, 129–144Google Scholar
  4. Bowling, D.J.F. (1987) Measurement of the apoplastic activity of K+ and Cl- in the leaf epidermis of Commelina communis in relation to stomatal activity. J. Exp. Bot. 38, 1351–1355Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W.H. (1916) The mechanism of movement and the duration of the effect of stimulation in the leaves of Dionaea. Am. J. Bot. 3, 68–90Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, N.A., Satter, R.L., Garbor, R.C. (1981) Apoplastic transport of ions in the motor organ of Samamea. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 2981–2984Google Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. (1875) Insectivorous plants. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, P.B., Chapman, G.B. (1955) On the development and structure of the cell wall in Nitella. Am. J. Bot. 42, 685–693Google Scholar
  9. Hager, A., Menzel, H., Krauss, A. (1971) Versuche und Hypothese zur Primärwirkung des Auxins beim Streckungs-wachstum. Planta 100, 47–75Google Scholar
  10. Heyn, A.N.J. (1931) Der Mechanismus der Zellstreckung. Rec. Trav. Bot. Neerl. 28, 113–244Google Scholar
  11. Hodick, D., Sievers, A. (1988) The action potential of Dionaea muscipula Ellis. Planta 174, 8–18Google Scholar
  12. Iijima, T., Sibaoka, T. (1983) Movement of K+ during shutting and opening of the trap-lobes in Aldrovanda vesiculosa. Plant Cell Physiol. 24, 51–60Google Scholar
  13. Jaffe, M.J. (1973) The role of ATP in mechanically stimulated rapid closure of the Venus's flytrap. Plant Physiol. 51, 17–18Google Scholar
  14. Kumon, K., Tsurumi, S. (1984) Ion efflux from pulvinar cells during slow downward movement of the petiole of Mimosa pudica L. induced by photostimulation. J. Plant Physiol. 115, 439–443Google Scholar
  15. Lichtner, F.T., Spanswick, R.M. (1977) Ion relations in Dionaea. (Abstr.) Plant Physiol. 59, Suppl., 84Google Scholar
  16. Pickard, B.G. (1970) Comparison of calcium and lanthanon ions in the Avena coleoptile growth test. Planta 91, 314–320Google Scholar
  17. Rayle, D.L., Cleland, R. (1970) Enhancement of wall loosening and elongation by acid solutions. Plant Physiol. 46, 250–253Google Scholar
  18. Spanswick, R.M. (1972) Evidence for an electrogenic ion pump in Nitella translucens: The effect of pH. K+, Na+, light, and temperature on the membrane potential and resistance. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 288, 73–89Google Scholar
  19. Spanswick, R.M. (1982) The electrogenic pump in the plasma membrane of Nitella. Curr. Top. Membr. Transp. 16, 35–47Google Scholar
  20. Stuhlman, O. (1948) A physical analysis of the opening and closing movements of the lobes of Venus fly-trap. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 75, 22–44Google Scholar
  21. Taiz, L. (1984) Plant cell expansion: regulation of cell wall mechanical properties. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35, 585–657Google Scholar
  22. von Guttenberg, H. (1959) Die physiologische Anatomic seismonastisch reaktionsfähiger Organe. In: Handbuch der Pflanzenphysiologie 17/1, pp. 175–191, Ruhland, W. ed. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. von Guttenberg, H. (1971) Bewegungsgewebe und Perzeptions-organe. In: Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie 5/5, pp. 171–175, Zimmermann, W. ed. Verlag Gebr. Bornträger Berlin, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams, S.E., Bonnett, A.B. (1982) Leaf closure in the Venus flytrap: an acid growth response. Science 218, 1120–1122Google Scholar
  25. Ziegenspeck, H. (1938) Die Mizellierung der Turgeszenz- und Wachstumsmechanismen der Pflanzen. Biol. Gen. 14, 266–283Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Hodick
    • 1
  • Andreas Sievers
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanisches Institut der Universität BonnBonn 1Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations