Advertisement

Planta

, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 193–221 | Cite as

Receptor potentials and action potentials in Drosera tentacles

  • Stephen E. Williams
  • Barbara G. Pickard
Article

Summary

Voltage fluctuations identified as receptor potentials can be detected with electrodes applied to the mucilage surrounding the head of a tentacle of Drosera intermedia if the head is stimulated by contact with a live insect, by the touch of a clean, inert object, or by application of salt solutions. Associated with a low receptor potential are action potentials, which occur at a frequency dependent on the magnitude of the receptor potential. These action potentials can be detected with electrodes applied to any region of the stalk of the tentacle. Inflection of the lower stalk follows the occurrence of action potentials. Inflection is minute for isolated action potentials but large and rapid when several occur within a brief interval.

The apparent amplitude of action potentials recorded from the stalk is independent of receptor potential amplitude, but that of action potentials recorded from the mucilage commonly decreases as the receptor potential deviates from the baseline and increases as it returns. It is suggested that variation of apparent amplitude of the action potentials may result from postulated variation in the resistance of receptor membranes.

Keywords

Salt Solution Receptor Membrane Receptor Potential Potential Amplitude Voltage Fluctuation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashida, J.: Studies on the leaf movement of Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. I. Process and mechanism of the movement. Mem. Coll. Sci., Kyoto Imp. Univ., Ser. B, 9, 141–244 (1934).Google Scholar
  2. Ashida, J.: Studies on the leaf movement of Aldovanda vesiculosa L. II. Effects of mechanical, electrical, thermal, osmotic and chemical influences. Mem. Coll. Sci., Kyoto Imp. Univ., Ser. B, 11, 55–113 (1935).Google Scholar
  3. Behre, K.: Physiologische und zytologische Untersuchungen über Drosera. Planta (Berl.) 7, 208–306 (1929).Google Scholar
  4. Benolken, R. M., Jacobson, S. L.: Response properties of a sensory hair exised from Venus's flytrap. J. gen. Physiol. 56, 64–82 (1970).Google Scholar
  5. Bose, J. C.: Comparative electro-physiology. London: Longmans, Green 1907.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, W. H.: The mechanism of movement and the duration of the effect of stimulation in the leaves of Dionaea. Amer. J. Bot. 3, 68–90 (1916).Google Scholar
  7. Bullock, T.H., Horridge, G. A.: Structure and function in the nervous systems of invertebrates, vol. 1. San Francisco-London: W. F. Freeman 1965).Google Scholar
  8. Burdon-Sanderson, J.: Note on the electrical phenomena which accompany stimulation of the leaf of Dionaea muscipula. Proc. roy. Soc. 21, 495–496 (1873).Google Scholar
  9. Burdon-Sanderson, J.: The excitability of plants. In: Sir John Burdon-Sanderson, a memoir... with a selection from his papers and addresses, p. 172–198 (Burdon-Sanderson, G., et al., eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press 1911.Google Scholar
  10. Burdon-Sanderson, J., Page, F. J. M.: On the mechanical effects and on the electrical disturbance consequent on excitation of the leaf of Dionaea muscipula. Proc. roy. Soc. 25, 411–434 (1876).Google Scholar
  11. Czaja, A. T.: Reizphysiologische Untersuchungen an Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol. 206, 635–658 (1924).Google Scholar
  12. Darwin, C.: Insectivorous plants. 1st edn. London: J. Murray 1875.Google Scholar
  13. Darwin, F.: More letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2. London: J. Murray 1903.Google Scholar
  14. Dryl, S., Grεbecki, A.: Progress in the study of excitation and response in ciliates. Protoplasma 62, 255–284 (1966).Google Scholar
  15. Hooker, H. D., Jr.: Physiological observations on Drosera rotundifolia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 43, 1–27 (1916).Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson, S. L.: The ionic basis for the response to stimulation of Venus's fly-trap. Doct. dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis 1968.Google Scholar
  17. Josephson, R. K.: Mechanisms of pacemaker and effector integration in coelenterates. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 20, 33–47 (1966).Google Scholar
  18. Mellon, D.: The physiology of sense organs. San Francisco: Freeman 1968.Google Scholar
  19. Nitschke, T.: Über die Reizbarkeit der Blätter von Drosera rotundifolia L. Bot. Ztg 18, 229–250 (1860).Google Scholar
  20. Pickard, B. G.: Action potentials resulting from mechanical stimulation of pea epicotyls. Planta (Berl.) 97, 106–115 (1971).Google Scholar
  21. Pfeffer, W.: The physiology of plants, vol. III, 2nd edn., trsltd. by A. J. Ewart. London: Oxford 1906.Google Scholar
  22. Sinyukhin, A. M., Britikov, E. A.: Action potentials in the reproductive systems of plants. Nature (Lond.) 215, 1278–1280 (1967a).Google Scholar
  23. Sinyukhin, A. M., Britikov, E. A.: Generation of potentials in the pistils of Incarvillea and Lily in conjunction with movement of the stigma and fertilization. Soviet Plant Physiol. 14, 393–403 (1967b).Google Scholar
  24. Umrath, K.: Über Erregungsleitung bei höheren Pflanzen. Planta (Berl.) 7, 174–207 (1929).Google Scholar
  25. Umrath, K.: Der Erregungsvorgang bei höheren Pflanzen. Ergebn. Biol. 14, 1–142 (1937).Google Scholar
  26. Umrath, K.: Der Erregungsvorgang. In: Encycl. Plant Physiol., vol. XVII, pt. 1, p. 24–110 (W. Ruhland, ed.) Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1959.Google Scholar
  27. Weatherburn, M. W.: Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analyt. Chem. 39, 971–974 (1967).Google Scholar
  28. Whitaker, E. H.: Physiological studies of two species of Drosera L. Doct. dissert., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y. 1949.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, S. E.: Rapid inflection of Drosera Tentacles. Doct. dissert., Washington Univ., St. Louis, Mo., 1971.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, S. E.: Pickard, B. G.: Properties of action potentials in Drosera tentacles Planta (Berl.) 103, 222–240 (1972).Google Scholar
  31. Wolbarsht, M. L.: Electrical characteristics of insect mechanoreceptors. J. gen. Physiol. 44, 105–122 (1960).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen E. Williams
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Barbara G. Pickard
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyWashington UniversitySt. Louis
  2. 2.Center for the Biology of Natural SystemsWashington UniversitySt. Louis
  3. 3.Section of Genetics, Development and PhysiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations