Abstract
The Venus flytrap has long been regarded as one of the most amazing examples of movement in the plant kingdom. The trapping ability of the flytrap consists of three unique features. First, trap closure represents one of the fastest movements in the plant kingdom. Second, a decision-making stage allows the plant to “decide” whether to completely close or open the trap, based on stimuli provided from the trapped object. Finally, the Venus flytrap contains a “memory function” that requires two mechanical stimuli within about 30 seconds to initiate trap closure. The movement involved in trap closure consists of nonlinear dynamics that have not been well understood. By understanding the movement, through nonlinear dynamics analysis, it will be possible to better understand this biological process. A mathematical model describing the movement of the Venus flytrap was first proposed by the authors in Yang et al., Plant Signal. Behav. 5(8), 968–978 (2010). In the current work, the earlier research has been advanced and an in-depth nonlinear and control analysis of the dynamic process has been provided.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashida, J. (1934). Studies on the leaf movement of Aldrovanda vesiculosa. Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imp. Univ. Ser. B, 9, 141–244.
Bobji, M. (2005). Springing the trap. J. Biosci., 30, 143–146.
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, 68–90.
Brown, W. H., & Sharp, L. W. (1910). The closing response in Dionaea. Bot. Gaz., 49(4), 290–302.
Burgert, I., & Fratzl, P. (2009). Actuation systems in plants as prototypes for bioinspired devices. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, 367, 1541–1557.
Daniels, M. J., Chaumont, F., Mirkov, T. E., & Chrispeels, M. J. (1996). Characterization of a new vacuolar membrane aquaporin sensitive to mercury at a unique site plant cell. Plant Cell, 8, 587–599.
Darwin, C. (1875). Insectivorous plants. London: Murray.
Fagerberg, W. R., & Allain, D. (1991). A quantitative study of tissue dynamics during closure in the traps of Venus’s flytrap Dionaea muscipula Ellis. Am. J. Bot., 78(5), 647–657.
Fagerberg, W. R., & Howe, D. G. (1996). A quantitative study of tissue dynamics in Venus’s flytrap Dionaea muscipula (Droseraceae). II. Trap reopening. Am. J. Bot., 83(7), 836–842.
Forterre, Y., Skotheim, J. M., Dumais, J., & Mahadevan, L. (2005). How the Venus flytrap snaps. Nature, 433(7024), 421–425.
Heinen, R. B., Ye, Q., & Chaumont, F. (2009). Role of aquaporins in leaf physiology. J. Exp. Bot., 60(11), 2971–2985.
Hodick, D., & Sievers, A. (1988). The action potential of Dionaea muscipula Ellis. Planta, 174(1), 8–18.
Hodick, D., & Sievers, A. (1989). On the mechanism of trap closure of Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula Ellis). Planta, 179(1), 32–42.
Jaffe, M. J. (1973). The role of ATP in mechanically stimulated rapid closure of the Venus’s flytrap. Plant Physiol., 51(1), 17–18.
Lichtner, F. T., & Williams, S. E. (1977). Prey capture and factors controlling trap narrowing in Dionaea (Droseraceae). Am. J. Bot., 64(7), 881–886.
Markin, V. S., Volkov, A. G., & Jovanov, E. (2008). Active movements in plants: mechanism of fly catching by Venus flytrap. Plant Signal Behav., 3, 778–783.
Maurel, C. (1997). Aquaporins and water permeability of plant membranes. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 48, 399–429.
Molz, F. J., & Ferrier, J. M. (1982). Mathematical treatment of water movement in plant cells and tissue: a review. Plant Cell Environ., 5, 191–206.
Rea, P. A. (1983). The dynamics of H + efflux from the trap lobes of Dionaea muscipula Ellis (Venus’s flytrap). Plant Cell Environ., 6(2), 125–134.
Sanderson, J. B. (1882). On the electromotive properties of the leaf of Dionaea in the excited and unexcited states. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, Biol. Sci., 173, 1–55.
Shahinpoor, M., & Thompson, M. S. (1995). The Venus flytrap as a model for a biomimetic material with built-in sensors and actuators. Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 2(4), 229–233.
Strauss, A., & York, J. (1968). On asymptotically autonomous differential equations. Theory Comput. Syst., 1(2), 175–182.
Stuhlman, O. Jr., & Darder, E. (1950). The action potentials obtained from Venus-flytrap. Science, 111, 491–492.
Taya, M. (2003). Bio-inspired design of intelligent materials. Proc. SPIE, 5051, 54–65.
Törnroth-Horsefield, S., Wang, Y., Johanson, U., Karlsson, M., Tajkhorshid, E., Neutze, R., & Kjellbom, P. (2006). Structural mechanism of plant aquaporin gating. Nature, 439, 688–694.
Ueda, M., & Nakamura, Y. (2006). Metabolites involved in plant movement and ‘memory’ nyctinasty of legumes and trap movement in the Venus flytrap. Nat. Prod. Rep., 23, 548–557.
Ueda, M., Tokunaga, T., Okada, M., Nakamura, Y., Takada, N., Suzuki, R., & Kondo, K. (2010). Trap-closing chemical factors of the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipulla Ellis). ChemBioChem, 11(17), 2378–2383.
Volkov, A. G., Adesina, T., & Jovanov, E. (2007). Closing of Venus flytrap by electrical stimulation of motor cells. Plant Signal. Behav., 2(3), 139–145.
Volkov, A. G., Coopwood, K. J., & Markin, V. S. (2008a). Inhibition of the Dionaea muscipula Ellis trap closure by ion and water channels blockers and uncouplers. Plant Sci., 175(5), 642–649.
Volkov, A. G., et al. (2008b). Plant electrical memory. Plant Signal Behav., 3, 490–492.
Volkov, A. G., et al. (2008c). Kinetics and mechanism of Dionaea muscipula trap closing. Plant Physiol., 146(2), 694–702.
Volkov, A. G., Carrell, H., & Markin, V. S. (2009). Biologically closed electrical circuits in Venus flytrap. Plant Physiol., 149, 1661–1667.
Willams, S. E., & Bennett, A. B. (1982). Leaf closure in the Venus flytrap: an acid growth response. Science, 218(4577), 1120–1122.
Yang, R. T., Scott, C. L., Zhang, M. J., & Xia, L. J. (2010). A mathematical model on the closing and opening mechanism for Venus flytrap. Plant Signal. Behav., 5(8), 968–978.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Proof of Main Theorems
1.1 A.1 Proof of Theorem 3.2
Because of the existence of stable invariant manifold W s by Theorem 3.1, system (4) can be restricted onto W s and rewritten as
Then \(f_{0}^{\prime }(0)=f_{0}^{\prime }(c)=-\mu<0\) and \(f_{0}^{\prime }(\frac{c}{2})=\mu(p-1)>0\) implies that \(S_{1}^{0}\) and \(S_{3}^{0}\) are stable and \(S_{2}^{0}\) unstable. Set Z=X I −X o and then
Note that A 0(X o ,X I ) is continuous in X o and X I as p≥1. Particularly when p>1 is an integer, we have \({A}_{0}=\alpha \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}X_{o}^{i}X_{I}^{p-i-1}/(X_{o}^{p}+X_{I}^{p})\). Because Z=0 is an equilibrium of Eq. (14) and as \(X_{o}=X_{I}<\frac{pc}{2}\),
one can see that W u is an invariant manifold and \(W_{u}^{0} \subset W_{u}\) is an unstable submanifold of (4). And W u plays the role of separatrix for bistability.
1.2 A.2 Proof of Theorem 3.4
It follows from (6) that
and
Obviously \(A_{1}(X_{I}^{-})<A_{1}(X_{I}^{+})\), \(A_{1}(X_{I}^{+})>0\) as \(X_{I}<\frac{pc}{2}\) and \(A_{1}(X_{I}^{-})<0\) as \(X_{I}>\frac{\alpha p}{2(2k_{t}+\mu)}\). Thus, \(W_{u}^{1}\) is locally stable in W o (where X I >X o ) and unstable in W c (where X I <X o ). Moreover, \(S_{2}^{0}\in W_{u}^{1}\) if and only if
Therefore, \(S_{2}^{0}=W_{s}\cap W_{u}^{1}\) is stable in W o and unstable in W c .
When system (6) is restricted onto W s , we have
for which obviously X I =c is not a solution, and hence \(S_{1}^{0}\) is not a steady state of (6). Additionally when \(X_{I}\in(\frac{c}{2}, c)\), set \(\beta =\frac{k_{t}}{\mu}\) and \(x=\frac{X_{o}}{X_{I}}\in[0, 1]\), then
Because g(x) is an increasing function as x∈[0,1] (see Appendix B),
Therefore, if β>β M or equivalently \(p<1+\frac{2k_{t}}{\mu}\), then Eq. (15) has no steady state to satisfy X I >X o . When X I <X o , system (15) is the same as (13), thus system (6) has only two steady states \(S_{1}^{1}=S_{2}^{0}\) and \(S_{2}^{1}=S_{3}^{0}\).
1.3 A.3 Proof of Theorem 3.5
The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.4. By the fact that \(p>1+\frac{2k_{t}}{\mu}\) is equivalent to β<β M , (15) has only one steady state at which X I >X o , denoted by \(S_{3}^{1}\). And its stability follows directly from the positive invariance of W s ∩W o that contains a unique steady state \(S_{3}^{1}\).
Note that for X I >X o ,
It follows from \(f_{1}^{\prime }(\frac{c}{2}-)>f_{1}^{\prime }(\frac{c}{2}+)>0\) that \(S_{1}^{1}\) is unstable in both W o and W c . The stability of \(S_{2}^{1}\) is trivial.
1.4 A.4 Proof of Theorem 3.7
By restricting on the stable manifold W s , system (8) is reduced to
When (X o ,X I )∈W c , that is X I <X o or \(X_{I}<\frac{c}{2}\),
Obviously X I =0 is a root of f 2(X I )=0. Set \(\gamma =\frac{k_{f}}{\mu}\) and for \(X_{I}\in(0, \frac{c}{2})\),
Let \(y=\frac{c}{X_{I}}>2\) and \(a=\frac{1}{1+\gamma }<1\), we have that
Note that for y>2,
which implies that h(y)=0 has no root for y>2 and consequently f 2(X I )=0 has no root other than X I =0, so that X I <X o . Therefore, system (8) has a unique steady state (c,0) in W c . It is easy to see that (c,0) is stable.
1.5 A.5 Proof of Theorem 3.7
Similar to the proof of Theorems 3.4 and 3.5, if X I >X o , i.e., \(X_{I}\in(\frac{c}{2}, c)\), let \(\beta =\frac{k_{t}}{\mu}\), \(\gamma =\frac{k_{f}}{\mu}\) and \(x=\frac{X_{o}}{X_{I}}<1\), then we have
Note that
and
Obviously, the monotonicity of h 1(x) implies the monotonicity of \(\frac{h_{1}(x)}{(1+x^{p})^{2}}\) and
If p−1≤2β, i.e., \(p\leq1+\frac{2k_{t}}{\mu}\), then \(h_{0}^{\prime }(x)\geq0\) for all x∈[0,1] and hence
which implies that h 0(x)=1+γ+β has no root in [0,1], i.e., f 2(X o ) has no root such that \(X_{o}>\frac{c}{2}\).
If p−1>2β, i.e., \(p>1+\frac{2k_{t}}{\mu}\), then there exists a unique \(\bar{x}\in(0, 1)\) such that \(h_{0}^{\prime }(\bar{x})=0\). If \(\gamma \geq\frac{p-1-2\beta }{p+1}\), then
On the other hand, an equivalent form of h 0(x)=0 yields
which implies that \(x<1-\frac{2\gamma }{p-1-2\beta }\). This is contradictory to the fact that \(x>\frac{\gamma +\beta }{1+\beta }\) under the assumption \(\gamma \geq\frac{p-1-2\beta }{p+1}\). Therefore, as \(\gamma \geq\frac{p-1-2\beta }{p+1}\) and p>1+2β, h 0(x)=1+γ+β has no root in [0,1]. This completes the proof.
1.6 A.6 Proof of Theorem 3.8
By Theorems 3.6 and 3.7, the closed state (c,0) is the unique steady state of system (8) and it is stable, thus it is a global attractor of system (8). Then there exists \(\bar{T}>0\) such that \(X_{o}(\bar{T})=X_{I}(\bar{T})=\frac {c}{2}\), when X I (0)=c.
Note that both u h (t) and u a (t) are present as \(t\leq T_{0}^{2}\) in system (7). If \(T_{0}^{2}>\bar{T}\), then \(X(T_{0}^{2})\in W_{c}\). As \(t>T_{0}^{2}\), there is no stimulus present in system (7) and there are three steady states for the system without stimulus. Because \(X(T_{0}^{2})\) is lying in the stability region W c of closed state \(S_{3}^{0}=(c, 0)\), eventually X will approach the closed state \(S_{3}^{0}\).
In contrast, if \(T_{0}^{2}<\bar{T}\), then \(X(T_{0}^{2})\) remains in W o that is the stability region of open state \(S_{1}^{0}=(0, c)\). Hence, eventually X moves back to open state again.
1.7 A.7 Proof of Theorem 3.9
Obviously there exists \(X_{I}^{*}<\frac{c}{2}\) such that \(f_{0}^{\prime }(X_{I}^{*})=0\) and
Let \(\bar{k}_{d}=-f_{0}(X_{I}^{*})>0\). If \(k_{d}>\bar{k}_{d}\), then f 3(X I )>0 for all X I ∈[0,c]. Thus, system (11) has no steady state and X I will increase in [0,c]. If \(k_{d}\leq\bar{k}_{d}\), then f 3(X I )=0 has at least one root in \([0, \frac {c}{2}]\) and thus (11) has at least one steady state in W c . Hence, X I can never go beyond W c if it starts from the closed state X I =0.
Moreover, when \(k_{d}>\bar{k}_{d}\), there may exist \(\tilde {T}_{2}>\tilde {T}_{1}>0\) (dependent on k d and \(\bar{k}_{d}\)) such that with X I (T start)=0, \(X_{I}(T_{\mathrm{start}}+\tilde {T}_{1})=\frac{c}{2}\), \(X_{I}(T_{\mathrm{start}}+\tilde {T}_{2})=c\) and X I (T start+t) is in between as \(t\in(\tilde {T}_{1}, \tilde {T}_{2})\) since X I is increasing. Therefore, in system (10), if \(T_{D}\in(\tilde {T}_{1}, \tilde {T}_{2})\) and X I (T start)=0, then \(X_{I}(T_{\mathrm{start}}+T_{D})\in(\frac{c}{2}, c)\) as \(T_{D}\in(\tilde {T}_{1}, \tilde {T}_{2})\). As shown in Fig. 6b, when t>T start+T D , X I (t) will eventually approach the open state X I =c because X I (T start+T D ) is in the stability region of open state.
Appendix B: Monotonicity of g(x)
In the following, we will prove that function
is an increasing function as x∈[0,1]. First, one has
and
where
Note that for x∈[0,1],
thus
which implies that g(x) is increasing in x∈[0,1].
Appendix C: Charge Accumulation
Consider the equation for charge accumulation
where u e (t) denotes a sequence of external stimuli with delay τ i such that 0=τ 0<τ 1<⋯<τ m , H(t) is the Heaviside function.
Lemma C.1
Let C m (t) be the solution to Eq. (17), then {C m } is an increasing sequence of bounded functions. Suppose that C m attains its maximum \(\bar{C}_{m}\) at t m , that is, \(\bar{C}_{m}=C_{m}(t_{m})\), then t m ∈(τ m ,t 0+τ m ] and \(\{\bar{C}_{m}\}\) is a strictly increasing sequence.
Proof
Obviously C m (t) is bounded for \(u_{e}^{m}(t)\) being bounded and k c >0. And it follows from comparison principle that C m (t)≤C m+1(t) for all t≥0 and hence \(\bar{C}_{m}\leq\bar {C}_{m+1}\), because \(u_{e}^{m}(t)\leq u_{e}^{m+1}(t)\) for all t≥0. More precisely, one can have the exact solution
where \(C_{0}(t)=\frac{Ak_{a}}{B-k_{c}} (-e^{-Bt}+e^{-k_{c}t} )\) is the solution of Eq. (2), increases as t<t 0 and decreases as t>t 0 and attains its maximum at \(t_{0}=\frac{\ln(\frac{B}{k_{c}})}{B-k_{c}}>0\), which can be solved from \(\dot{C}_{0}=\frac{Ak_{a}}{B-k_{c}} (Be^{-Bt}-k_{c}e^{-k_{c}t} )=0\).
Since \(C_{1}(t_{0}+\tau_{1})=C_{0}(t_{0}+\tau_{1})+C_{0}(t_{0})>\bar{C}_{0}\), one can readily see that \(\bar{C}_{1}>\bar{C}_{0}\). Note that as t≤τ 1,
which implies that t m >τ m . By induction, one has that \(\bar{C}_{m+1}>\bar{C}_{m}\) and t m >τ m for m≥0.
On the other hand, as t>t 0+τ m ,
and hence t m ≤t 0+τ m . Therefore, t m ∈(τ m ,t 0+τ m ].
Moreover, if t 0>τ 1, then as t∈(τ 1,t 0],
which implies that t 1>t 0. Thus t 1∈(max{t 0,τ 1},t 0+τ 1]. This completes the proof. □
Lemma C.2
For any C T >0, there exist an integer m>0 and an increasing finite sequence \(\{\tau_{i}\}_{i=1}^{m}\) such that the solution of (17) satisfies \(\bar{C}_{m}>C_{T}\).
Proof
For fixed A,B,k a ,k c >0, C 0(t)>0 for all t>0. For any fixed L>0, set c L =C 0(t 0+L)>0 and m to be such that (m+1)c L ≥C T . Define \(\tau_{i}=\frac{Ti}{m}\) for 0≤i≤m, then
□
Lemma C.3
For fixed C T >0 and integer m>1, suppose that \(\bar{C}_{0}<C_{T}\). Then there exists d>0 such that for any increasing sequence \(\{\tau_{i}\}_{i=0}^{m}\) satisfying τ 0=0 and τ i+1−τ i ≥d, \(\bar{C}_{m}<C_{T}\).
Proof
Set \(D=\frac{1}{2}(C_{T}-\bar{C}_{0})\). Because of the exponential decay of C 0(t), there exists d>t 0 sufficiently large such that \(C_{0}(t)<\frac{D}{m}\) as t≥d. By Lemma C.1, C m (t) attains its maximum \(\bar{C}_{m}\) at t m ∈(τ m ,t 0+τ m ].
Then for any t∈(τ m ,t 0+τ m ] and 1≤i≤m−1, one has t−τ i >τ m −τ m−1≥d>t 0 and thus
from which it follows immediately that
□
Remark C.4
Lemmas C.1 and C.2 show that the charge is always possible to be accumulated to reach the threshold C T regardless of how high its value is. However, if the hairs can be touched only finite times (m times) and the time delay between any two consecutive hair triggering is larger than certain value d, then the charge accumulation can never reach C T , as shown in Lemma C.3. The exact value of d is not analytically available but can be estimated from \(C_{0}(d)<\frac{D}{m}\), or an improved estimate from \(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}C_{0}((i+1)d)<D\).
Theorem C.5
The maximum \(\bar{C}_{m}\) of C m (t) is given by
Proof
By Lemma C.1, t m >τ m and then
On the other hand, \(\dot{C}_{m}(t_{m})=0\) implies that
By (19) and (20), one also has
Then it follows from solving (20) and (21) that
□
To reach the threshold C T , one only need the time delays {τ i } be such that \(\bar{C}_{m}(\{\tau_{i}\})\geq C_{T}\). In the following, we will consider a simple case of m=1, where we let τ=τ 1 for simplicity.
Corollary C.6
Suppose that B>k c , m=1 and \(\bar{C}_{0}>\frac{C_{T}}{2}\). Then there exists a unique \(\bar{\tau}>0\) such that \(\bar{C}_{1}>C_{T}\) as \(\tau\in(0, \bar{\tau})\) and \(\bar{C}_{1}<C_{T}\) as \(\tau>\bar{\tau}\). And \(\bar{\tau}\) is increasing in \(\frac{Ak_{a}}{C_{T}}\).
Proof
As m=1, consider
Then
or equivalently
where \(c_{f}=B\ln B-k_{c}\ln k_{c}+(B-k_{c})\ln (\frac{C_{T}}{Ak_{a}} )\). Note that
as B>k c . Note that f(0)>0 if and only if \(2\bar{C}_{0}>C_{T}\) and lim τ→∞ f(τ)=−c f <0. Thus, there exists unique \(\bar {\tau}>0\) such that \(f(\bar{\tau})=0\) and f(τ)>0 as \(\tau\in(0, \bar{\tau})\). In other words, \(\bar{C}_{1}= C_{T}\) as \(\tau=\bar{\tau}\), \(\bar{C}_{1}>C_{T}\) as \(\tau\in(0, \bar{\tau})\) and \(\bar{C}_{1}<C_{T}\) as \(\tau>\bar{\tau}\).
Furthermore, \(\bar{\tau}\) can be solved from f(τ)=0 and it depends on B,k c and \(\frac{C_{T}}{Ak_{a}}\). Because \(\frac{\partial f}{\partial (\frac{C_{T}}{Ak_{a}})}<0\) as B>k c , by implicit differentiation one knows that \(\bar{\tau}\) depends decreasingly on \(\frac{C_{T}}{Ak_{a}}\) or increasingly on \(\frac{Ak_{a}}{C_{T}}\) as a whole. □
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Lenaghan, S.C. & Zhang, M. Nonlinear Dynamics of the Movement of the Venus Flytrap. Bull Math Biol 74, 2446–2473 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-012-9760-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-012-9760-y