Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 211–223 | Cite as

Propagation of the neuroid action potential of the carnivorous plantDrosera

  • Stephen E. Williams
  • Roger M. Spanswick
Article

Summary

The neuroid action potentials ofDrosera rotundifolia recorded from single cells resemble those recorded from the surface of tentacle stalks. They have similar amplitudes and durations and they show the same variation of duration with interval that characterizes the extracellularly recorded action potentials. All living cells of the stalk appear to be excitable since cells from both layers were observed to produce action potentials when intracellular recording techniques were used.

Propagation of electrically induced action potentials down the stalk occurred at a rate of 4.3 mm/s±0.6 S.E.M. while propagation up the stalk occurred at a rate of 9.9 mm/s±2.0 S.E.M. The fact that attenuated signals from electrical processes and stimulus artifacts in distant parts of the stalk were detected in recordings indicates that the cells of the stalk were closely coupled and that propagation from cell to cell is probably by an electrotonic mechanism. This hypothesis gains additional support from the observation of numerous cytoplasmic connections (plasmodesmata) through the cell walls separating the cells which are most likely to conduct the action potential.

Keywords

Cell Wall Living Cell Single Cell Distant Part Intracellular Recording 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelman, W.J., Dyro, F.N., Senft, J.: Responses obtained from internally perfused axons. J. gen. Physiol.48, Suppl., 1–9 (1965)Google Scholar
  2. Arisz, W.H.: Transport of substances through the tentacles of leaves ofDrosera capensis L. Nature (Lond.)170, 932–933 (1952)Google Scholar
  3. Behre, K.: Physiologische und zytologische Untersuchungen überDrosera. Planta (Berl.)7, 208–306 (1929)Google Scholar
  4. Belton, P., Van Netten, C.: The effects of pharmacological agents on the electrical responses of cells ofNitella flexilis. Canad. J. Physiol. Pharmacol.49, 824–832 (1971)Google Scholar
  5. Benolken, R.M., Jacobson, S.L.: Response properties of a sensory hair excised from Venus's flytrap. J. gen. Physiol.56, 64–82 (1970)Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C.: Insectivorous plants. 1st edn. London: J. Murray 1875Google Scholar
  7. Fabian-Galan, G., Salageanu, N.: Considerations on the nutrition of certain carnivorous plants (Drosera capensis andAldrovanda vesiculosa). Rev. Roum. Biol. Ser. Bot.13, 275–280 (1968)Google Scholar
  8. Feder, N., O'Brien, T.P.: Plant microtechnique: some principles and new methods. Amer. J. Bot.55, 123–142 (1968)Google Scholar
  9. Hooker, H.D., Jr.: Physiological observations onDrosera rotundifolia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club43, 1–27 (1916)Google Scholar
  10. Lloyd, F.E.: Carnivorous plants. New York: Ronald Press 1942Google Scholar
  11. Pickard, B.G.: Action potentials in higher plants. Bot. Rev.39, 172–201 (1973)Google Scholar
  12. Ragetli, H.W.J., Weintraub, M., Lo, E.: Characteristics ofDrosera tentacles. I. Anatomical and cytological detail. Canad. J. Bot.50, 159–168 (1972)Google Scholar
  13. Reynolds, R.S.: The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in electron microscopy. J. Cell Biol.17, 208–213 (1963)Google Scholar
  14. Sneadecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G.: Statistical methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press 1967Google Scholar
  15. Spanswick, R.M.: Electrical coupling between the cells of higher plants: a direct demonstration of intercellular communication. Planta (Berl.)102, 215–227 (1972)Google Scholar
  16. Spanswick, R.M.: Symplasmic transport in plants. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol.28, 127–137 (1974)Google Scholar
  17. Spanswick, R.M., Costerton, J.W.F.: Plasmodesmata inNitella translucens: structure and electrical resistance. J. Cell Sci.2, 451–464 (1967)Google Scholar
  18. Mollenhauer, H.H.: Plastic embedding mixtures for use in electron microscopy. Stain Technol.39, 111–114 (1963)Google Scholar
  19. Vierhaus, J., Ulbricht, W.: Rate of action of tetraethylammonium ions on the duration of action potentials in single Ranvier nodes. Pflügers Arch.326, 88–100 (1971)Google Scholar
  20. Whitaker, E.H.: Physiological studies of two species ofDrosera L. Doct. dissert., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 1949Google Scholar
  21. Williams, S.E.: Comparative sensory physiology of the Droseraceae — the evolution of a plant sensory system. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc.120, in press (1976)Google Scholar
  22. Williams, S.E., Pickard, B.G.: Receptor potentials and action potentials inDrosera tentacles. Planta (Berl.)103, 222–240 (1972a)Google Scholar
  23. Williams, S.E., Pickard, B.G.: Properties of action potentials inDrosera tentacles. Planta (Berl.)103, 222–240 (1972b)Google Scholar
  24. Williams, S.E., Pickard, B.G.: Connections and barriers between cells ofDrosera tentacles in relation to their electrophysiology. Planta (Berl.)116, 1–16 (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen E. Williams
    • 1
  • Roger M. Spanswick
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Genetics, Development and PhysiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations