Content uploaded by H. Martin Schaefer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by H. Martin Schaefer on Dec 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Biol. Lett. (2008) 4, 153–155
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0607
Published online 15 January 2008
Animal behaviour
Fatal attraction:
carnivorous plants roll
out the red carpet to
lure insects
H. Martin Schaefer
1,
*
and Graeme D. Ruxton
2
1
Faculty of Biology, Department of Evolutionary Biology and Animal
Ecology, University of Freiburg, Hauptstrasse 1, 79104 Freiburg,
Germany
2
Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of
Biomedical & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
*Author for correspondence (martin.schaefer@biologie.uni-freiburg.de).
We provide the first experimental test of the
hypothesis that the coloration of carnivorous
plants can act as a signal to lure insects and thus
enhance capture rates. An experimental
approach was needed to separate effects of the
visual appearance of plants from those of traits
that may correlate with appearance and also
affect capture rat es. We compared insect capture
rates of pitcher plants with artificially coloured
red and green pitchers in a paired design, and
found tha t plants with red pitchers captured
significantly more flying insects. Thus, we
present the first experimental evidence of visual
signalling in carnivorous plants. Further, it has
previously been suggested that carnivorous
plants use contrasting stripes or UV marks on
their pitchers to lure insects; our results empha-
size that insect traps do not need to sport
contrasting colours to be attractive; it might be
sufficient to be different from the background.
Keywords: plant–animal interactions;
visual signalling; insect vision; anthocyanins; traps
1. INTRODUCTION
The multiple, independent evolution of carnivory in
plants is considered an adaptation to nutrient-poor
habitats (Ellison & Gotelli 2001). In these habitats,
the availability of animal prey is a key factor for plant
fitness as it enhances biomass, flower and seed
production (Moran & Moran 1998). To increase
capture rates, plants might use a variety of deceiving
signals to lure insects. While many carnivorous plants
have nectaries and use olfactory signals, it has
repeatedly been suggested that they also use visual
signals to attract prey ( Joel et al. 1985; Moran et al.
1999; Biesmeijer et al . 2005). This conjecture has,
however, not been tested experimentally. Hence, and
in contrast to the immense progress in understanding
plant visual signals that are used for pollination and
seed dispersal (Chittka et al. 2001; Schaefer et al.
2004), the design and efficiency of visual signals in
carnivorous plants are poorly known.
The potential role of visual signalling in the
remarkably diverse group of carnivorous plants is
intriguing as the traps of all species examined in a
large interspecific comparison sport visual characters
that are considered to be attractive to insects
(Biesmeijer et al. 2005). These include UV reflection
and strong chromatic contrasts of radiating stripes
on the traps (Joel et al.1985; Biesmeijer et al.
2005). Remarkably, many unrelated plants sport red
coloration, particularly on the structures used to
capture prey. For example, pitcher plants from the
genus Nepenthes sport no or very little UV reflec-
tance but large inter- and intraspecific variation
(from green to red) in the coloration of pitchers
(Joel et al. 1985; Moran et al . 1999). Although the
human eye perceives strong contrasts between red
colours and the generally green background of most
plants, red is considered dull or cryptic to most
insects since their colour vision does not extend as
far into the red as that of humans (Chittka et al .
2001). However, red colours are not invisible to
insects (Chittka & Waser 1997), and the capture
rates of Sarracenia pitcher plants correlated with the
amount of red venation (Cresswell 1993; Newell &
Nastase 1998). However, given that red veins are
lined with nectaries (Cresswell 1993) and red is
often not a strongly contrasting colour to insects, it
is uncertain whether the nectaries or the red colour
enhanced capture rates in these studies.
From the perspective of plant–animal communi-
cation, the development of red coloration on insect
traps might be non-adaptive since the expression of
anthocyanins, the pigments producing red hues, is
often related to stress responses in plants (Schaefer &
Rolshausen 2006). In particular, foliar anthocyanin
production is often related to N and P deficiencies
(Steyn et al. 2002). Consistent with this view, prey-
deprived individuals of Nepenthes rafflesiana were
characterized by smaller and fewer pitchers and
by increased anthocyanin production (Moran &
Moran 1998).
To test the adaptive value of red coloration in
attracting prey, we conducted an experiment
comparing capture rates in artificially coloured red
and green pitchers. If red coloration is primarily a
stress response, we expect no difference in the capture
rates of individuals with red or green pitchers. In
contrast, if red coloration is a visual signal functioning
to lure insects, we expect that red pitchers would
capture more insects than green ones do.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
We b o ug ht 20 sa m e- a ge d Nepenthes ventricosa plants from a
commercial supplier. In this species, originating from Southeast
Asia, pitchers differed in their coloration from red to green. To
exclude the effects of correlated selection, i.e. that traits associated
with differential coloration (e.g. olfactory cues) may bias prey
capture, we coloured pitchers artificially either completely red
(experimental group) or completely green (control group) using a
mixture of opaque white (Milan no. 306), yellow ( Eberhard Faber
no. 8801-1), and green and red paints (Buntlack, Obi). Because
both colours consisted of a mix of acrylic and tempera paints, we
minimized biases caused by different odours associated with the
paint (albeit not entirely eliminating them). Therefore, if insects
reacted differently to the colours, we assumed that this is primarily
due to visual differences. Indeed, in a previous experiment, we used
similar colours and found that aphids did not discriminate between
these artificial colours and natural red and green plant coloration
(Schaefer & Rolshausen 2007).
To measure natural and artificial pitcher colours, we used an
Avantes 2048 spectrometer (Avantes, Eerbeek, The Netherlands)
that was connected with a coaxial fibre cable to a Deuterium–
Halogen lamp (Ava-lamp DHS) as a standardized light source.
Received 4 December 2007
Accepted 2 January 2008
153 This journal is q 2008 The Royal Society
Reflectance of the natural colours of 20 pitchers and of 10 artificial
green and 10 artificial red pitchers was measured relative to a
standard white reference tile (diffuse PTFE; WS-2). The probe was
mounted inside a matt black plastic tube to exclude ambient light
(Schaefer et al. 2007). The angle of illumination and reflection was
fixed at 458. Spectra were processed with A
VASOFT v. 6.1 software
and calculated in intervals of 5 nm from 300 to 700 nm. The
artificial colours matched the natural colour variation found in
N. ventricosa (figure 1).
We categorized plants into two groups according to the number
of active pitchers. One group contained plants with one or two
pitchers; the other group included plants with three to five pitchers.
From each group, we randomly assigned plant individuals to the
experimental (red) or control (green) group. There was no
difference in the number of pitchers per plant between groups
(meanGs.e.: experimental group: 2.9G0.37 pitchers; control group
2.9G0.27 pitchers; t-test, nZ20, tZ0.0, pO0.99). It is well known
that differences in the microhabitats might influence capture rates
(Cresswell 1993). To minimize such effects, we positioned one red
and one green plant in pairs at 40 cm distance from each other
outside the Institute of Biology in Freiburg. This site was
characterized by several freshwater pools; pairs of plants were
placed at 4 m distances from other pairs and from ponds. We
randomly determined the position of plants within a pair.
At the start of the experiment, we inspected the pitchers without
removing the cap of the pitchers. We only found Collembola (in
almost every plant). After 7 days since the start of the experiment,
we removed the cap of the pitcher to examine the entire interior
and counted all insects. Some of these insects might not have been
visible at the start of the experiment. We therefore continued the
experiment until day 15 when we extracted insects with forceps and
identified the major taxonomic groups of prey. To use a conserva-
tive figure, we subtracted the number of insects caught on day 7
from the total number of insects on day 15 to obtain the number of
insects that were caught during the last 8 days of the experiment.
We used this number, which excluded all Collembola, to test for
differences between groups with paired two-sided t-tests as data
were normally distributed.
3. RESULTS
We found a total of 133 prey items in the pitchers.
Fifty of these were caught during the last 8 days
of the experiment with a mean capture rate of 2.5
(G0.4 s.e.) prey items per plant. These prey items
consisted of Diptera (58%), Homoptera and Acari
(14% each), Hymenoptera (10%, mainly Symphyta
which only occurred in red pitchers) and Araneae
(4%). Only Diptera were common enough to test
for differences in capture rates. Artificially coloured
red individuals caught more Diptera (paired t-test,
tZ3.25, p!0.01) and a higher overall number of
insects than artificially coloured green individuals
(paired t -test, tZ2.98, p!0.01; figure 2).
4. DISCUSSION
Our experiment shows that carnivorous plants can
increase their foraging success using visual signals.
More specifically, we show that red coloration can be
an adaptive trait for carnivorous plants as it increased
the overall capture rates of insects, particularly that of
Diptera. These results extend our understanding of
the evolutionary ecology of carnivorous plants for two
reasons. First, we present the first experimental
evidence of visual signalling in carnivorous plants.
Second, it has previously been suggested, based on
correlations between capture rates and pitcher color-
ation, that carnivorous plants use UV signals or
contrasting stripes to lure insects (Joel et al. 1985;
Moran et al. 1999; Biesmeijer et al. 2005). The higher
capture rates of unicoloured red pitchers in our
experiment thus extend the array of potential visual
signals that carnivorous plants might use. Our results
emphasize that insect traps do not need to sport
contrasting colours to be attractive; it might be
sufficient to be different from the background.
The higher efficiency of red pitchers might be
surprising at first glance, since it contrasts with the
traditional belief that red coloration is an inefficient
signal to insects. While humans can see colour farther
into the red than most insects, some insects such as
Symphyta also possess photoreceptors with peak
sensitivity in the red. More importantly, red colours
are not invisible to insects (e.g. Diptera) lacking such
photoreceptors (Chittka & Waser 1997). Artificial red
objects are even used for pest control owing to their
success in luring fruit flies (Cytrynowics et al.1982;
Katsoyannos & Kouloussis 2001), which is consistent
with our results of increased capture rates of Diptera
by red pitchers. Even bees that cannot discriminate
red colours based on differences in hue are able to
distinguish them based on differences in luminance,
i.e. the intensity of reflected red light. Likewise,
bees might distinguish red colours produced by
40
30
20
reflectance (%)
10
0
300 400 500
wavelen
g
th (nm)
600
green
red
700
Figure 1. Mean reflectance spectra of N. ventricosa pitchers.
The mean reflectance spectra of natural red and green
pitchers are illustrated with solid lines, those of artificial
colours with dotted lines. The shaded area represents the
standard deviation of natural pitcher coloration.
7
6
5
4
3
no. of captured insects
2
1
0
green red
g
rou
p
Figure 2. The number of insects caught per plant with
either red or green pitchers over the course of 8 days.
Illustrated are means, interquartiles, and 10th and 90th
percentiles as whiskers.
154 H. M. Schaefer & G. D. Ruxton Signals of carnivorous plants
Biol. Lett. (2008)
anthocyanins from other colours based on differences
in the blue or green part of the spectrum (Chittka &
Waser 1997). In our experiment, the reflectance of
natural and artificial red pitchers differs from that of
natural and artificial green pitchers both in the green
(520–570 nm) and in the red parts (greater than
610 nm) of the spectrum. It thus remains open
whether insects perceived red pitchers as different
because they reflected more red light or less green
light and had a lower overall luminance. In both the
cases, red pitchers are more different (i.e. red and
dark) from the background of green foliage than green
pitchers. We propose that red pitchers are more
effective because they represent, in addition to the
olfactory signals of nectaries, a visual stimulus that
might direct insects to the trap.
We conclude that the multiple, independent
evolution of carnivory in plants (with more than 600
species described to date) presents an ideal, but
hitherto overlooked, model system to analyse signal-
ling in plant–animal interactions. Elucidating the
mechanisms that plants employ to capture insects will
greatly enhance our understanding of the evolutionary
ecology of carnivory. Moreover, in light of the
increased capture rates of red pitchers the variability
of pitcher coloration in N. ventricosa is puzzling.
Carnivorous plants might thus be ideal to test
hypotheses on insect vision as well as on the proxi-
mate mechanisms of plant coloration.
We thank Julius Braun who helped us in the experiment.
H.M.S. was sponsored by a grant from the German Science
Foundation (Scha 1008/4-1). The experiment complies
with all current laws.
Biesmeijer, J. C., Giurfa, M., Koedam, D., Potts, S. G.,
Joel, D. M. & Dafni, A. 2005 Convergent evolution:
floral guides, stingless bee nest entrances, and insectivor-
ous pitchers. Naturwissenschaften 92, 444– 450. (doi:10.
1007/s00114-005-0017-6)
Chittka, L. & Waser, N. M. 1997 Why red flowers are not
invisible to bees. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 45, 169 –183.
Chittka, L., Spaethe, J., Schmidt, A. & Hickelsberger, A.
2001 Adaptation, constraint, and chance in the evolution
of flower color and pollinator color vision. In Cognitive
ecology of pollination (eds L. Chittka & J. D. Thomson),
pp. 106–126. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cresswell, J. E. 1993 The morphological correlates of prey
capture and resource parasitism in pitchers of the
carnivorous plant Sarracenia purpurea. Am. Midl. Nat.
129, 35 – 41. (doi:10.2307/2426433)
Cytrynowics, M., Morgante, J. & Desouza, H. M. L. 1982
Visual responses of South American fruit flies, Anastre-
pha fraterculus, and Mediterranean fruit flies, Ceratitis
capitata, to colored rectangles and spheres. Environ.
Entomol. 11, 1202–1210.
Ellison, A. M. & Gotelli, N. J. 2001 Evolutionary ecology of
carnivorous plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 623 –629.
(doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02269-8)
Joel, D. M., Juniper, B. E. & Dafni, A. 1985 Ultraviolet
patterns in the traps of carnivorous plants. New Phytol.
101, 585 –593. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1985.tb02864.x)
Katsoyannos, B. I. & Kouloussis, N. A. 2001 Captures of
the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae on spheres of different
colours. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 100, 165–172. (doi:10.
1023/A:1019232623830)
Moran, J. A. & Moran, A. J. 1998 Foliar reflectance and
vector analysis reveal nutrient stress in prey-deprived
pitcher plants (Nepenthes rafflesiana). Int. J. Plant Sci.
159, 996–1001. (doi:10.1086/314086)
Moran, J. A., Booth, W. E. & Charles, J. K. 1999 Aspects
of pitcher morphology and spectral characteristics of six
Bornean Nepenthes pitcher plant species: implications for
prey capture. Ann. Bot. 83, 521–528. (doi:10.1006/anbo.
1999.0857)
Newell, S. J. & Nastase, A. J. 1998 Efficiency of insect
capture by Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae), the
northern pitcher plant. Am. J. Bot. 85, 88 – 91. (doi:10.
2307/2446558)
Schaefer, H. M. & Rolshausen, G. 2006 Plants on red
alert—do insects pay attention? BioEssays 28, 65 –71.
(doi:10.1002/bies.20340)
Schaefer, H. M. & Rolshausen, G. 2007 Aphids do not
attend to leaf colour as visual signal, but to the handicap
of reproductive investment. Biol. Lett. 3,1–4.(doi:10.
1098/rsbl.2006.0548)
Schaefer, H. M., Schaefer, V. & Levey, D. J. 2004 How
plant–animal interactions signal new insights in com-
munication. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 577–584. (doi:10.
1016/j.tree.2004.08.003)
Schaefer, H. M., Schaefer, V. & Vorobyev, M. 2007 Are
fruit colors adapted to consumer vision and birds equally
efficient in detecting colorful signals? Am. Nat. 169,
S159–S169. (doi:10.1086/510097)
Steyn, W. J., Wand, S. J. E., Holcroft, D. M. & Jacobs, G.
2002 Anthocyanins in vegetative tissues: a proposed
unified function in photoprotection. New Phytol. 155,
349– 361. (doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00482.x)
Signals of carnivorous plants H. M. Schaefer & G. D. Ruxton 155
Biol. Lett. (2008)