4.3 Article

Mineral cost of carnivory in aquatic carnivorous plants

Journal

FLORA
Volume 205, Issue 9, Pages 618-621

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2009.11.001

Keywords

Aldrovanda vesiculosa; Utricularia spp.; Trap and shoot N, P, K, Ca, Mg content; Investment in carnivory; Mineral cost-benefit relationships

Funding

  1. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [AV0Z60050516]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tissue N, P. K, Ca, and Mg content was estimated in traps and photosynthetic and carnivorous shoots in five aquatic carnivorous plant species from an outdoor culture: Aldrovanda vesiculosa, Utricularia vulgaris, U. reflexa, U. intermedia, and U. stygia, for the determination of the mineral cost of carnivory. In three species with monomorphic shoots (A. vesiculosa, U. vulgaris, U. reflexa), tissue P and K content in traps was significantly higher than that in their photosynthetic shoots, whereas N content was about the same. In U. stygia and U. intermedia with dimorphic shoots, tissue N and P content was markedly the highest in photosynthetic shoots followed by traps, while it was lowest in carnivorous shoots. In all five species, trap K content was significantly (2-4 times) higher than that in photosynthetic and carnivorous shoots. In all species, the values of the mineral cost of carnivory - the proportion of mineral nutrient amount contained in traps or carnivorous shoots to that in the total plant biomass - were within 19-61% for N, 33-76% P. 51-78%K, 26-70% Ca, and 34% for Mg. A new concept of the ecological cost-benefit relationships of plant carnivory, based on the mineral benefit of prey capture and mineral costs associated with trap production, is introduced for aquatic carnivorous plants. The evolution of this plant group is considered to show the optimization of these mineral cost-benefit relationships. (C) 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available