title: Capture mechanism in Palaeotropical pitcher plants (Nepenthaceae) is constrained by climate.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Nepenthes (Nepenthaceae, approx. 120 species) are carnivorous pitcher plants with a centre of diversity comprising the Philippines, Borneo, Sumatra and Sulawesi. Nepenthes pitchers use three main mechanisms for capturing prey: epicuticular waxes inside the pitcher; a wettable peristome (a collar-shaped structure around the opening); and viscoelastic fluid. Previous studies have provided evidence suggesting that the first mechanism may be more suited to seasonal climates, whereas the latter two might be more suited to perhumid environments. In this study, this idea was tested using climate envelope modelling.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 94 species, comprising 1978 populations, were grouped by prey capture mechanism (large peristome, small peristome, waxy, waxless, viscoelastic, non-viscoelastic, 'wet' syndrome and 'dry' syndrome). Nineteen bioclimatic variables were used to model habitat suitability at approx. 1 km resolution for each group, using Maxent, a presence-only species distribution modelling program.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Prey capture groups putatively associated with perhumid conditions (large peristome, waxless, viscoelastic and 'wet' syndrome) had more restricted areas of probable habitat suitability than those associated putatively with less humid conditions (small peristome, waxy, non-viscoelastic and'dry' syndrome). Overall, the viscoelastic group showed the most restricted area of modelled suitable habitat.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The current study is the first to demonstrate that the prey capture mechanism in a carnivorous plant is constrained by climate. Nepenthes species employing peristome-based and viscoelastic fluid-based capture are largely restricted to perhumid regions; in contrast, the wax-based mechanism allows successful capture in both perhumid and more seasonal areas. Possible reasons for the maintenance of peristome-based and viscoelastic fluid-based capture mechanisms in Nepenthes are discussed in relation to the costs and benefits associated with a given prey capture strategy.
authors: School of Environment and Sustainability, Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, V9B 5Y2 Canada.
authors: Jonathan A
authors: JA
authors: Moran
authors: Laura K
authors: LK
authors: Gray
authors: Charles
authors: C
authors: Clarke
authors: Lijin
authors: L
authors: Chin
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D017753:Ecosystem; D007313:Insecta / Q000502:physiology*; D008954:Models, Biological; D010163:Paleontology; D052583:Sarraceniaceae / Q000502:physiology*; D014329:Tropical Climate
keywords: Biogeography; Nepenthaceae; Nepenthes; Palaeotropics; capture mechanism; carnivorous plants; climate envelope modelling; pitcher plant
references: Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Aug;29(8):1629-43
references: 16898023
references: J Exp Bot. 2011 Jun;62(10):3683-92
references: 21459766
references: Ecol Appl. 2009 Jan;19(1):181-97
references: 19323182
references: Planta. 2007 May;225(6):1517-34
references: 17109149
references: Plant Cell Environ. 2011 Nov;34(11):1865-73
references: 21707655
references: PLoS One. 2007 Nov 21;2(11):e1185
references: 18030325
references: Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2011;2:302-10
references: 21977443
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Feb 7;275(1632):259-65
references: 18048280
references: Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2006 Nov;8(6):831-40
references: 17203435
references: Ann Bot. 2007 May;99(5):895-906
references: 17452380
references: Planta. 2003 Nov;218(1):87-97
references: 12883887
references: Ann Bot. 2008 Nov;102(5):845-53
references: 18757449
references: Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2006 Nov;8(6):841-8
references: 17203436
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 28;101(39):14138-43
references: 15383667
references: Arthropod Struct Dev. 2004 Jan;33(1):103-11
references: 18089026
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38951
references: 22719998
references: Ann Bot. 2009 Dec;104(7):1281-91
references: 19805403
references: Ann Bot. 2009 Aug;104(2):307-14
references: 19454591
references: Biol Lett. 2009 Oct 23;5(5):632-5
references: 19515656
references: J Evol Biol. 2012 Jan;25(1):90-102
references: 22023155
references: New Phytol. 2011 Jul;191(2):545-554
references: 21434933
references: Plant Signal Behav. 2012 Feb;7(2):295-7
references: 22353868
references: Am J Bot. 1999 Oct;86(10):1382-90
references: 10523280
references: Evolution. 1985 Nov;39(6):1335-1351
references: 28564267
references: Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(8):1219-26
references: 19307189
references: Plant Signal Behav. 2012 Aug;7(8):957-60
references: 22836498
references: New Phytol. 2002 Dec;156(3):479-489
references: 33873580
references: J Biosci. 2008 Mar;33(1):121-36
references: 18376077
references: J Exp Biol. 2010 Apr;213(Pt 7):1115-25
references: 20228348
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36179
references: 22590524
references: Nature. 2002 Jan 3;415(6867):36-7
references: 11780106
references: Ann Bot. 2007 Sep;100(3):527-36
references: 17664255
references: New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(2):461-70
references: 20100203
references: Ecology. 2006 Dec;87(12):3186-99
references: 17249242
references: J Exp Biol. 2004 Aug;207(Pt 17):2947-63
references: 15277550
references: Biol Lett. 2011 Jun 23;7(3):436-9
references: 21270023