Advertisement

Journal of Biosciences

, 33:121 | Cite as

Contribution of pitcher fragrance and fluid viscosity to high prey diversity in a Nepenthes carnivorous plant from borneo

  • Bruno Di Giusto
  • Vladimir Grosbois
  • Elodie Fargeas
  • David J. Marshall
  • Laurence Gaume
Article

Abstract

Mechanisms that improve prey richness in carnivorous plants may involve three crucial phases of trapping: attraction, capture and retention. Nepenthes rafflesiana var. typica is an insectivorous pitcher plant that is widespread in northern Borneo. It exhibits ontogenetic pitcher dimorphism with the upper pitchers trapping more flying prey than the lower pitchers. While this difference in prey composition has been ascribed to differences in attraction, the contribution of capture and retention has been overlooked. This study focused on distinguishing between the prey trapping mechanisms, and assessing their relative contribution to prey diversity. Arthropod richness and diversity of both visitors and prey in the two types of pitchers were analysed to quantify the relative contribution of attraction to prey trapping. Rate of insect visits to the different pitcher parts and the presence or absence of a sweet fragrance was recorded to clarify the origin and mechanism of attraction. The mechanism of retention was studied by insect bioassays and measurements of fluid viscosity. Nepenthes rafflesiana was found to trap a broader prey spectrum than that previously described for any Nepenthes species, with the upper pitchers attracting and trapping a greater quantity and diversity of prey items than the lower pitchers. Capture efficiency was low compared with attraction or retention efficiency. Fragrance of the peristome, or nectar rim, accounted mainly for the observed non-specific, better prey attraction by the upper pitchers, while the retentive properties of the viscous fluid in these upper pitchers arguably explains the species richness of their flying prey. The pitchers of N. rafflesiana are therefore more than simple pitfall traps and the digestive fluid plays an important yet unsuspected role in the ecological success of the species.

Keywords

Attraction carnivory digestive liquid insect capture Nepenthes rafflesiana pitcher plant 

References

  1. Adam J H 1997 Prey spectra of Bornean Nepenthes species (Nepenthaceae) in relation to their habitat; Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 20 121–134Google Scholar
  2. Beaver R A 1983 The communities living in Nepenthes pitcher plants: fauna and food webs; in Phytotelmata: terrestrial plants as hosts for aquatic insect communities (eds) J H Frank and L P Lounibos (Medford, New Jersey, USA: Plexus Publishing, Inc.) pp 129–160Google Scholar
  3. Blüthgen N and Fledler K 2004 Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities: Community and evolutionary ecology of nectar; Ecology 85 1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohn H F and Fiederle W 2004 Insect aquaplaning: Nepenthes pitcher plants capture prey with the peristome, a fully wettable water-lubricated anisotropic surface; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 14138–14143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brühl C A, Gunsalam G and Linsenmair K E 1998 Stratification of ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in a primary rain forest in Sabah, Borneo; J. Trop. Ecol. 14 285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheek M and Jebb M 2001 Nepenthaceae; in Flora Malaysiana,, S1, Seed Plants (Leiden, the Netherlands: Publication Department of the National Herbarium Nederland) p. 164Google Scholar
  7. Clarke C 1997 Nepenthes of Borneo (Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Natural History Publications [Borneo])Google Scholar
  8. Clarke C 2001 Nepenthes of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia (Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Natural History Publications [Borneo])Google Scholar
  9. Davidson D W, Cook S C, Snelling R R and Chua T H 2003 Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies; Science 300 969–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Giusto B, Anstett M-C, Dounias E and McKey D B 2001 Variation in the effectiveness of biotic defense: the case of an opportunistic ant-plant protection mutualism; Oecologia 129 367–375Google Scholar
  11. Di Giusto B, Guéroult M, Rowe N and Gaume L 2008 The waxy surface in Nepenthes pitcher plants: variability, adaptive significance and developmental evolution; in Functional surfaces in biology (ed) S. Gorb (Berlin: Springer) (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Ellison A M, Gotelli N J, Brewer J S, Cochran-Stafira D L, Kneitel J M, Miller T E, Worley A C and Zamora R 2003 The evolutionary ecology of carnivorous plants; Adv. Ecol. Res. 33 1–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaume L, Gorb S and Rowe N 2002 Function of epidermal surfaces in the trapping efficiency of Nepenthes alata pitchers; New Phytol. 156 479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaume L, Perret P, Gorb E, Gorb S, Labat J-J and Rowe N 2004 How do plant waxes cause flies to slide? Experimental tests of wax-based trapping mechanisms in three pitfall carnivorous plants; Arthropod Struct. Dev. 33 103–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaume L, Zacharias M, Grosbois V and Borges R M 2005 The fitness consequences of bearing domatia and having the right ant partner: experiments with protective and non-protective ants in a semi-myrmecophyte; Oecologia 145 76–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glossner F 1992 Ultraviolet patterns in the traps and flowers of some carnivorous plants; Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 113 577–587Google Scholar
  17. Gorb E, Haas K, Henrich A, Enders S, Barbakadze N and Gorb S 2005 Composite structure of the crystalline epicuticular wax layer of the slippery zone in the pitchers of the carnivorous plant Nepenthes alata and its effect on insect attachment; J. Exp. Biol. 208 4651–4662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaffe K, Blum M S, Fales H M, Mason R T and Cabrera A 1995 On insect attractants from pitcher plants of the genus Heliamphora (Sarraceniaceae); J. Chem. Ecol. 21 379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joel D M 1988 Mimicry and mutualism in carnivorous pitcher plants (Sarraceniaceae, Nepenthaceae, Cephalotaceae, Bromeliaceae); Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35 185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joel D M, Juniper B E and Dafni A 1985 Ultraviolet patterns in the traps of carnivorous plants; New Phytologist 101 585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juniper B E and Burras J 1962 How pitcher plants trap insects; New Sci. 13 75–77Google Scholar
  22. Juniper B E, Robins R J and Joel D 1989 The carnivorous plants (London, UK: Academic Press)Google Scholar
  23. Kato M, Hotta M, Tamin R and Itino T 1993 Inter-and intra-specific variation in prey assemblages and inhabitant communities in Nepenthes pitchers in Sumatra; Trop. Zool. 6 11–25Google Scholar
  24. Lloyd F E 1942 The carnivorous plants (Waltham, Mass., US: Chronica Botanica Co.)Google Scholar
  25. Lüttge U 1983 Ecophysiology of carnivorous plants; in Encyclopedia of plant physiology (eds) O L Lange, P S Nobel, C B Osmond and H Ziegler (Berlin: Springer) pp 489–517Google Scholar
  26. Massey B S 2006 Mechanics of fluids 8th edition, revised by J A Ward-Smith (ed) (London, New York: Taylor and Francis Routledge)Google Scholar
  27. McKey D B, Gaume L, Brouat C, Di Giusto B, Pascal L, Debout G, Dalecky A and Heil M 2005 The trophic structure of tropical ant-plant-herbivore interactions: community consequences and coevolutionary dynamics; in Biotic interactions in the tropics (eds) D Burslem, M Pinard and S Hartley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 386–413Google Scholar
  28. Merbach M A, Zizka G, Fiala B, Maschwitz U and Booth W A 2001 Patterns of nectar secretion in five Nepenthes species from Brunei Darussalam, Northwest Borneo, and implications for ant-plant relationships; Flora 196 153–160Google Scholar
  29. Miles D H, Kokpol U and Mody N V 1975 Volatiles in Sarracenia flava; Phytochemistry 14 845–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moran J A 1996 Pitcher dimorphism, prey composition and the mechanism of prey attraction in the pitcher plant Nepenthes rafflesiana in Borneo; J. Ecol. 84 515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moran J A, Booth W E and Charles J K 1999 Aspects of pitcher morphology and spectral characteristics of six Bornean Nepenthes pitcher plant species: implications for prey capture; Ann. Bot. 83 521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moran J A, Merbach M A, Livingston N J, Clarke C M and Booth W E 2001 Termite prey specialization in the pitcher plant Nepenthes albomarginata — evidence from stable isotope analysis; Ann. Bot. 88 307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osunkoya O O, Daud S D, Di Giusto B, Wimmer F L and Holige T M 2007 Construction costs and physio-chemical properties of the assimilatory organs of Nepenthes species in northern Borneo; Ann. Bot. 99 895–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newell S J and Nastase A J 1998 Efficiency of insect capture by Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae), the northern pitcher plant; Am. J. Bot. 85 88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillipps A and Lamb A 1996 Pitcher plants of Borneo (Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Natural History Publications [Borneo])Google Scholar
  36. Salmon B 1993 Some observations on the trapping mechanisms of Nepenthes inermis and N. rhombicaulis; Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 23 101–114Google Scholar
  37. Schultze W, Schultze E D, Pate J S and Gillison A N 1997 The nitrogen supply from soils and insects during growth of the pitcher plants Nepenthes mirabilis, Cephalotus follicularis and Darlingtonia californica; Oecologia 112 464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stork N E 2003 Biodiversity; in Encyclopedia of insects (eds) V H Resh and R T Cardé (Academic Press: San Diego, USA)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Di Giusto
    • 1
  • Vladimir Grosbois
    • 2
  • Elodie Fargeas
    • 3
  • David J. Marshall
    • 1
  • Laurence Gaume
    • 3
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversiti Brunei DarussalamGadongBrunei Darussalam
  2. 2.Department of BiometryCEFE-CNRSMontpellier cedex 5France
  3. 3.Botanique et bioinformatique de l’architecture des plantesUMR CNRS 5120, CIRAD-TA-51/PS2Montpellier, cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations