Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Venus flytrap trigger hairs are micronewton mechano-sensors that can detect small insect prey

Abstract

Venus flytraps detect moving insects via highly sensitive, action potential (AP)-producing trigger hairs, which act as high-sensitivity levers, crucial for prey capture and digestion. Controlled stimulation revealed that they can trigger APs for deflections >2.9°, angular velocities >3.4° s–1 and forces >29 µN. Hairs became desensitized and subsequently responded to fast consecutive stimulations; desensitization increased at lower temperatures. Recording of ant trigger hair contact events revealed that even small insects exceed the hairs’ sensitivity threshold.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Flytrap APs are elicited via touch-sensitive trigger hairs.
Fig. 2: Dionaea AP desensitization.

Data availability

The authors declare that all data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper. Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to, and will be fulfilled by, the lead contact, R. Hedrich (hedrich@botanik.uni-wuerzburg.de).

References

  1. 1.

    Ellison, A. M. & Adamec, L. R. Carnivorous Plants 1st edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Benolken, R. M. & Jacobson, S. L. J. Gen. Physiol. 56, 64–82 (1970).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Darwin, C. Insectivorous Plants (D. Appleton & Co., 1875).

  4. 4.

    Burdon-Sanderson, J. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 21, 495–496 (1873).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bohm, J. et al. Curr. Biol. 26, 286–295 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Scherzer, S. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4822–4827 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hodick, D. & Sievers, A. Planta 174, 8–18 (1988).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bohm, J. et al. Mol. Plant 9, 428–436 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Meyerhoff, O. et al. Planta 222, 418–427 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Felix, G., Baureithel, K. & Boller, T. Plant Physiol. 117, 643–650 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kwaaitaal, M., Maintz, J., Cavdar, M. & Panstruga, R. Plant Signal Behav. 7, 1373–1377 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bueso, E. et al. Plant J. 80, 1057–1071 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zhang, F. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1720–1725 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bowler, C., Yamagata, H., Neuhaus, G. & Chua, N. H. Genes Dev. 8, 2188–2202 (1994).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hamant, O. & Haswell, E. S. BMC Biol. 15, 59 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sklodowski, K. et al. Sci. Rep. 7, 44611 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Beilby, M. J. & Khazaaly, S. A. AIMS Biophys. 4, 298–315 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jacobson, S. L. J. Gen. Physiol. 49, 117–129 (1965).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Zhou, L. H. et al. Plant Cell Environ. 40, 611–621 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Keil, T. A. Microsc. Res. Tech. 39, 506–531 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Barth, F. G. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 415–422 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Barth, F. G., Nemeth, S. S. & Friedrich, O. C. J. Comp. Physiol. A 190, 523–530 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Stork, N. E. J. Exp. Biol. 88, 91-& (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wohrl, T., Reinhardt, L. & Blickhan, R. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 1618–1625 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a DFG Koselleck grant (no. 415282803) to R.H. It was also supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (no. 642861) to W.F., and the International Research Group Program (no. IRG14-08), Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University (to R.H. and K.Al-R.).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.S., W.F., K.Al-R. and R.H. designed the research. S.S. and W.F. performed the research. S.S., W.F. and R.H. analysed the data. S.S., W.F. and R.H. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to S. Scherzer or W. Federle or R. Hedrich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Nature Plants thanks Edward Farmer, Yoel Forterre, Jean-Marie Frachisse and Daniel Robert for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Video legends and Supplementary Figs. 1–2.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

WT Dionaea trap stimulated twice by strong deflection followed by trap closure. Similar results were obtained for at least 101 different traps.

Supplementary Video 2

Basmati Dionaea trap stimulated twice by strong deflection followed by trap closure. Please note the absence of trigger hairs in this mutant. Similar results were obtained for all 51 different traps.

Supplementary Video 3

Ants walking across a fixed Dionaea leaf filmed with a Nikon D750 Digital SLR camera (mounted at 90° to the leaf surface) at 60 frames s–1 (78.5 pixels mm–1). Trigger hair deflection events were digitized, allowing calculation of three-dimensional tip movement and hence of the hair’s angular deflection. Example of n = 46 biologically independent contacts is shown.

Supplementary Video 4

Intact Dionaea trap was fixed (left) and a trigger hair was deflected by movement of the motor-driven force transducer (right). Stimulations were performed with varying motor amplitudes and velocities. In parallel, the applied force and the trap surface/extracellular potential were measured (20 frames s–1). Example for motorized trigger hair stimulation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scherzer, S., Federle, W., Al-Rasheid, K.A.S. et al. Venus flytrap trigger hairs are micronewton mechano-sensors that can detect small insect prey. Nat. Plants 5, 670–675 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0465-1

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing