Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25672361›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2015

Fluid physico-chemical properties influence capture and diet in Nepenthes pitcher plants.

Vincent Bazile, Gilles Le Moguédec, David J Marshall, Laurence Gaume

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. CarnivorousApplied and environmental microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vincent BazileUniversité Montpellier II, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, INRA, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, Biology Department, University of Brunei Darussalam, TungkuLink, Gadong BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam and CNRS, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France Bazile.vincent@outlook.com Laurence.gaume@cirad.fr.
Gilles Le MoguédecUniversité Montpellier II, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, INRA, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, Biology Department, University of Brunei Darussalam, TungkuLink, Gadong BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam and CNRS, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France.
David J MarshallUniversité Montpellier II, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, INRA, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, Biology Department, University of Brunei Darussalam, TungkuLink, Gadong BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam and CNRS, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France.
Laurence GaumeUniversité Montpellier II, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, INRA, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France, Biology Department, University of Brunei Darussalam, TungkuLink, Gadong BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam and CNRS, UMR AMAP: Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes, CIRAD TA A51/PS2 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France Bazile.vincent@outlook.com Laurence.gaume@cirad.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsNepenthes pitcher plants have evolved modified leaves with slippery surfaces and enzymatic fluids that trap and digest prey, faeces and/or plant detritus. Although the fluid's contribution to insect capture is recognized, the physico-chemical properties involved remain underexplored and may vary among species, influencing their diet type. This study investigates the contributions of acidity and viscoelasticity in the fluid's capture efficiency of two ant and two fly species in four Nepenthes species with different nutrition strategies.

methodsFour Nepenthes species were studied, namely N. rafflesiana, N. gracilis, N. hemsleyana and N. ampullaria. Fluid was collected from pitchers of varying ages from plants growing in the field and immediately transferred to glass vials, and individual ants (tribe Campotini, Fomicinae) and flies (Calliphora vomitoria and Drosophila melanogaster) were dropped in and observed for 5 min. Water-filled vials were used as controls. Survival and lifetime data were analysed using models applied to right-censored observations. Additional laboratory experiments were carried out in which C. vomitoria flies were immersed in pH-controlled aqueous solutions and observed for 5 min. KEY

resultsPitcher fluid differed among Nepenthes species as regards insect retention capacity and time-to-kill, with differences observed between prey types. Only the fluids of the reputedly insectivorous species were very acidic and/or viscoelastic and retained significantly more insects than the water controls. Viscoelastic fluids were fatal to flies and were able to trap the broadest diversity of insects. Younger viscoelastic fluids showed a better retention ability than older fluids, although with less rapid killing ability, suggesting that a chemical action follows a mechanical one. Insect retention increased exponentially with fluid viscoelasticity, and this happened more abruptly and at a lower threshold for flies compared with ants. Flies were more often retained if they fell into the traps on their backs, thus wetting their wings. Insect retention and death rate increased with fluid acidity, with a lower threshold for ants than for flies, and the time-to-kill decreased with increasing acidity. The laboratory experiments showed that fewer flies escaped from acidic solutions compared with water.

conclusionsIn addition to viscoelasticity, the pitcher's fluid acidity and wetting ability influence the fate of insects and hence the diet of Nepenthes. The plants might select the prey that they retain by manipulating the secretion of H(+) ions and polysaccharides in their pitcher fluid. This in turn might participate in possible adaptive radiation of this genus with regard to nutrient sequestration strategy. These plants might even structurally influence insect fall-orientation and capture-probability, inspiring biomimetic designs for pest control.

Indexed as

Food ChainAnimalsBorneoBruneiElasticityHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationInsectaMagnoliopsidaSpecies SpecificityViscosityAcidityant capturecarnivorous plantdigestive fluidfly captureinsect captureNepenthespest controlpitcher plantviscoelasticity

Identifiers

PMID25672361
PMCPMC4343297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.