Role of areoles on prey abundance and diversity in the hooded pitcher plant (Sarracenia minor, Sarraceniaceae)

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jason P. McGregor ; Daniel C. Moon ; Anthony M. Rossi
• 关键词：Ants ; Areoles ; Pitcher plants ; Prey capture ; Prey diversity ; Sarracenia minor ; Visual lures
• 刊名：Arthropod-Plant Interactions
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：10
• 期：2
• 页码：133-141
• 全文大小：652 KB
• 参考文献：Barthlott W, Porembski S, Seine R, Theisen I (2007) Sarraceniaceae: American pitcher plant family. The Curious World of Carnivorous Plants: a comprehensive guide to their biology and cultivation. Timber Press, Oregon
  Beaulac D, Walguarnery J, Meyer R (2002) Baseline study of the hooded pitcher plant (Sarracenia minor): its utility as an indicator species of freshwater wetland habitats. Osprey J Ideas Inq 2:17–24
  Bennett KF, Ellison AM (2009) Nectar, not colour, may lure insects to their death. Biol Lett 5:469–472CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Bhattarai GP, Horner JD (2009) The importance of pitcher size in prey capture in the carnivorous plant, Sarracenia alata Wood (Sarraceniaceae). Am Midl Nat 161:264–272CrossRef
  Biesmeijer JC, Giurfa M, Koedam D, Potts SG, Joel DM, Dafni A (2005) Convergent evolution: floral guides, stingless bee nest entrances, and insectivorous pitchers. Naturwissenschaften 92:444–450CrossRef PubMed
  Brewer JS (2003) Why don’t carnivorous pitcher plants compete with non-carnivorous plants for nutrients? Ecol 84:451–462CrossRef
  Cresswell JE (1991) Capture rates and composition of insect prey of the pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea. Am Midl Nat 125:1–9CrossRef
  Creswell JE (1992) The morphological correlates of prey capture and resource parasitism in pitcher of the carnivorous plant Sarracenia purpurea. Am Midl Nat 129:35–41CrossRef
  Ellison AM, Farnsworth EJ (2005) The cost of carnivory for Darlingtonia californica (Sarraceniaceae): evidence from relationships among leaf traits. Am J Bot 92:1085–1093CrossRef PubMed
  Ellison AM, Gotelli NJ (2001) Evolutionary ecology of carnivorous plants. Trends Ecol Evol 16:623–629CrossRef
  Farnsworth EJ, Ellison AM (2008) Prey availability directly affects physiology, growth, nutrient allocation and scaling relationships among leaf traits in 10 carnivorous plant species. J Ecol 96:213–221
  Fish D (1976) Insect-plant relationships of the insectivorous pitcher plant Sarracenia minor. Fla Entomol 59:199–203CrossRef
  Folkerts D (1999) Pitcher plant wetlands of the Southeastern United States. In: Batzer DP, Rader RB, Wissinger SA (eds) Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. Wiley, New York
  Gibson TC (1991) Differential escape of insects from carnivorous plant traps. Am Midl Nat 125:55–62CrossRef
  Green ML, Horner JD (2007) The relationship between prey capture and characteristics of the carnivorous pitcher plant, Sarracenia alata wood. Am Midl Nat 158:424–443CrossRef
  Heard SB (1998) Capture rates of invertebrate prey by the pitcher plant, Sarracenia purpurea L. Am Midl Nat 139:79–89CrossRef
  Joel DM (1988) Mimicry and mutualism in carnivorous pitcher plants (Sarraceniaceae, Nepenthaceae, Cephalotaceae, Bromeliaceae). Biol J Linn Soc 35:185–197CrossRef
  Joel DM, Juniper BE, Dafni A (1985) Ultraviolet patterns in the traps of carnivorous plants. New Phytol 101:585–593CrossRef
  McPherson S (2006) Sarracenia pitcher plants of the Americas. McDonald & Woodward Publishing, Virginia
  Meyer R, Walguarnery J, Beaulac D, Brown T, Hughes K (2001) Morphological differences among two populations of the hooded pitcher plant, Sarracenia minor, and its usefulness as an indicator species for bog and seepage savanna communities. Osprey J Ideas Inq 1:9–12
  Moon DC, Rossi A, Stokes K, Moon J (2008) Effects of the pitcher plant mining moth Exyra semicrocea on the hooded pitcher plant Sarracenia minor. Am Midl Nat 159:321–326CrossRef
  Moon DC, Rossi A, Depaz J, McKelvey L, Elias S, Wheeler E, Moon J (2010) Ants provide nutritional and defensive benefits to the carnivorous plant Sarracenia minor. Oecol 164:185–192CrossRef
  Moran JA (1996) Pitcher dimorphism, prey composition and the mechanisms of prey attraction in the pitcher plant Nepenthes rafflesiana in Borneo. J Ecol 84:515–525CrossRef
  Moran JA, Clarke C, Gowen BE (2012) The use of light in prey capture by the tropical pitcher plant Nepenthes aristolochioides. Plant Sign Behav 7:957–960CrossRef
  Newell SJ, Nastase AJ (1998) Efficiency of insect capture by Sarracenia purpurea(Sarraceniaceae), the northern pitcher plant. Am J Bot 85:88–91CrossRef PubMed
  Schaefer HM, Ruxton GD (2008) Fatal attraction: carnivorous plants roll out the red carpet to lure insects. Biol Lett 4:153–155CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Schnell DE (1976) Carnivorous plants of the United States and Canada. John F. Blair, Winston-Salem
  Schnell DE (2002) The eastern North America pitcher plants (Sarracenia). Carnivorous plants of the United States and Canada. Timber Press, Oregon
  Sheridan P (1996) The hooded pitcher plant, Sarracenia minor Walt., at its southern limit. Carniv Plant Newslett 25(2):39–41
  Slack A (1979) The trumpet pitchers: Sarracenia. Carnivorous plants. MIT Press, Massachusetts
  Thomas DD (2002) Propagation protocol for North American pitcher plants (Sarracenia L.). Nat Plants J 3:50–53CrossRef
  Thoren LM, Tuomi J, Kamarainen T, Laine K (2003) Resource availability affects investment in carnivory in Drosera rotundifolia. New Phytol 159:507–511CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Jason P. McGregor (1)
  Daniel C. Moon (1)
  Anthony M. Rossi (1)
  
  1. Department of Biology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Entomology; Invertebrates; Plant Sciences; Ecology; Behavioural Sciences; Plant Pathology;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1872-8847

文摘

The hooded pitcher plant, Sarracenia minor, is a carnivorous facultative wetland species native to the southeastern USA and is listed as threatened by the state of Florida. Pitchers of S. minor possess white, semitranslucent spots (areoles), which have been hypothesized to aid in the capture of prey (= visual lures) by increasing the amount of light entering the back of the hood, which persuades insects to enter and fall into the base of the pitcher. In this study, the role of the areoles in prey capture abundance and diversity were experimentally investigated under variable lighting conditions in situ. Plants in two populations experiencing different light intensities, which varied in the amount of canopy cover and incident light reaching the plants, were experimentally manipulated by coloring varying percentages of areoles, ranging from 0 to 100 % (in increments of 25 %), with indelible ink. After 2 months, pitchers were collected and dissected to determine the number and identity of prey captured (approximately 18,000 prey were sampled). Although total prey abundance was approximately five times higher at McGirt’s Creek (sunny site) compared to UNF (shaded site), the effect of areoles on prey capture rates and biodiversity was site dependent. Reducing the number of visual lures of plants at the sunny site produced a significant decrease in the number of prey captured, but prey biodiversity (community composition) was unaffected. However, total prey capture was unaffected at the shaded site, while prey biodiversity was negatively correlated with the percent of areoles colored. Results from the current study suggest that areoles conditionally act as visual lures, but their overall importance is dependent on local environmental variables—especially canopy cover and the amount of incident sunlight reaching the plants.