Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249976

Snapshot prey spectrum analysis of the phylogenetically early-diverging carnivorous Utricularia multifida from U. section Polypompholyx (Lentibulariaceae)

Martin Horstmann 1, Andreas Fleischmann 2, Ralph Tollrian 1, Simon Poppinga 3,4,*
Editor: Ofer Ovadia5
PMCID: PMC8026053  PMID: 33826676

Abstract

Utricularia multifida is carnivorous bladderwort from Western Australia and belongs to a phylogenetically early-diverging lineage of the genus. We present a prey spectrum analysis resulting from a snapshot sampling of 17 traps–the first of this species to our knowledge. The most abundant prey groups were Ostracoda, Copepoda, and Cladocera. The genus cf. Cypretta (Cyprididae, Ostracoda) was the predominant prey. However, a high variety of other prey organisms with different taxonomic backgrounds was also detected. Our results indicate that U. multifida may potentially be specialized in capturing substrate-bound prey. Future approaches should sample plants from different localities to allow for robust comparative analyses.

Introduction

Carnivorous bladderworts (Utricularia spp, Lentibulariaceae, Lamiales) catch their prey with sophisticated suction traps [13]. Prey spectra have been thoroughly investigated for several free-floating aquatic species from U. section Utricularia, revealing that members of Acaridae, Crustaceae (especially Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda), Gastropoda, Nematoda, Rotifera, and Tardigrada are commonly caught [413]. Mosquito larvae also fall prey to their bladders traps quite regularly [14,15]. Furthermore, a multitude of ‘algae’ (diatoms, Chlorophyceae, etc.), ciliates, bacteria and protozoa can be found inside the traps and may be part of complex food webs [11,1623].

For those bladderwort species that are not freely floating in water but are affixed to the substrate (i.e., submerged or emersed terrestrials, including lithophytes, epiphytes, and rheophytic species), only little information regarding the prey spectra exists. Acaridae, Crustacea, and Rhizopoda were found in herbarium material [4], members of Adenophorea, Branchiopoda, Chelicerata, Eutardigrada, Insecta, Maxillopoda, and Ostracoda were found in traps of U. uliginosa [24], and metazoa such as gastrotrichs, nematodes and rotifers, as well as protozoa such as Vorticella spp. (Ciliophora) and numerous algae (especially Frustulia sp.) were found in the traps of U. volubilis [25].

The phylogenetically early-branching U. multifida from U. section Polypompholyx is an affixed submersed species from the south west corner of Western Australia [26] (Fig 1). In contrast to the typically lentiform, more or less thin-walled, and frontally accessible traps of most other species, U. multifida (and two close allies) has thick-walled traps, which are triangular in a transverse section, and an entrance region which can only be accessed from lateral sides [2729]. This species has drawn some interest recently due to the fact that suction could not be observed in traps during laboratory experiments [3032], although earlier investigations by Lloyd [28] state that its traps are indeed capable of suction. It was consequently theorized that U. multifida may possess an exceptional non-motile trap type similar to the eel trap type found in closely related Genlisea corkscrew plants [33], which allow easy entry but prevent exit of prey by structural obstacles. However, no reports on the spectrum of naturally caught prey as well as on the actual process of prey capture are available so far. To gain first insights into the diet and possible prey preference of this enigmatic species, we performed a snapshot prey spectrum analysis on traps collected in the habitat.

Fig 1. Utricularia multifida in its habitat.

Fig 1

A large population of U. mutlifida growing in a permanently wet seepage site near Marbellup (Western Australia), on oligotrophic quartzitic sand-peat soil covered by a ca. 0.5–1.0 cm, slowly flowing water film. (A) A stand of flowering plants. (B) The plants grow submersed and are partly buried in the soil. (C) An excavated plant. The inflorescence stalks, green photosynthetic leaves, and pale stolons carrying the traps are well visible. Photos by A.F.

Materials and methods

Two plants with 17 filled traps were collected on 04.10.2008 at a permanently wet seepage site near Marbellup (Western Australia), growing on oligotrophic quartzitic sand-peat soil covered by a ca. 0.5–1.0 cm, slowly flowing water film (Fig 1). Plant material was fixed in aceto-ethanol (3:1) (cf. [9,23]).

Traps were opened with forceps at the Department of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany and prey was carefully rinsed out. Block bowls were used and covered with a glass plate as often as possible to keep evaporation low (and thus evaporation-induced convection in the samples). Prey was separated from detritus in several portions, presorted into groups with the help of eyelashes, photographed with an Olympus SZX 16 (Olympus, Tokio, Japan) stereo microscope equipped with a TSO camera (Thalheim Spezialoptik GmbH, Pulsnitz, Germany), counted and identified according to the literature [3441]. Trap sizes were measured with the same optical setup.

Results

In total, 233 prey items were found inside the 17 traps investigated (Table 1). Due to the varying degrees of digestion, the identification down to the genus level was not possible for many items. The most common prey groups were Ostracoda (112 items), Copepoda (80), and Cladocera (34) (Fig 2). The by far most abundant identifiable prey genus was cf. Cypretta from the ostracod family Cyprididae (107 items) (Fig 3A and 3B). Furthermore, members of the copepod superfamilies Cyclopoida (38) (Fig 3C) and Harpacticoida (10) as well as numerous not further identifiable copepods (32) constituted similarly abundant prey groups. The cladoceran genus Macrothrix (Fig 3D) was also found in comparably large amounts (28).

Table 1. Recorded prey items.

Group Class/order Family Genus Species epitheton Numbers
Acari Hydrachnidia 1
Crustacea Onychura Chydoridae Saycia cf. cooki 1
Crustacea Onychura Macrothricidae Echinisca 3
Crustacea Onychura Macrothricidae Macrothrix 28
Crustacea Onychura Podonidae 1
Crustacea Onychura 1
Crustacea Copepoda/Cyclopoida 38
Crustacea Copepoda/Harpacticoida 10
Crustacea Copepoda 32
Insecta Coleoptera cf. Dytiscidae 1
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae cf. Larsia cf. albiceps 1
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 1
Insecta 1
Crustacea Ostracoda/Cypridoidea Cyprididae cf. Cypretta 107
Crustacea Ostracoda/Cypridoidea 5
unidentified 2
Total number of prey items: 233

Taxonomic background and numbers of the in total 233 prey specimen found in the traps of Utricularia multifida.

Fig 2. Abundancy of prey groups from the U. multifida traps investigated, depicted as pie chart.

Fig 2

The total numbers of prey items found is indicated for each group. With 112 found prey items, Ostracoda (blue) represents the main prey group, followed by Copepoda (grey, 80 items) and Cladocera (red, 34 items). Insecta (orange, 4 items) and Acari (yellow, 1 item) are much lesser represented. Two prey items could not be identified (dark blue).

Fig 3. Prey items detected inside the traps of U. multifida.

Fig 3

(A) Ostracoda (cf. Cypretta), whole animal, scale bar = 250 μm, (B) Ostracoda (cf. Cypretta), carapace half with septae, scale bar = 200 μm, (C) Copepoda, Cyclopoida, scale bar = 200 μm, (D) Macrotricidae, Macrothrix, 1st antenna dilated distally, scale bar = 100 μm, (E) Dytiscidae, head of larva, scale bar = 100 μm, (F) Chironomidae, cf. Larsia, scale bar = 250 μm.

One taxon of Acari (Hydrachnidia), four members of Insecta, and two further unidentified prey items were also found. From Insecta, members of Coleoptera (cf. Dytiscidae) in larval stadium (Fig 3E) and Diptera-Chironomidae (in one case cf. Larsia albiceps) (Fig 3F) occurred in the traps. Algae, as commonly found in the traps of many Utricularia species, could not be detected.

Most captured prey had a size between 0.2–0.9 mm. Only a few prey items exceeded this length. The largest intact prey item we found was an ostracod with a body length of 1.2 mm. The total sizes of the captured coleopteran larva and midge larvae can be estimated to be around 1.3–1.8 mm, based on the sizes of the preserved head capsules found inside the traps.

With an average trap length of 2.3 mm (min: 1.8 mm; max: 2.7 mm) and width of 1.9 mm (min: 1.5 mm; max: 2.3 mm) (S1 Table), we observed a similar overall size as reported in previous literature [2732].

Discussion

Our snapshot analyses of 17 traps from the affixed aquatic U. multifida identifies three main crustacean groups as abundant prey from the sampling site, namely Cladocera, Copepoda, and Ostracoda. These groups are also commonly reported as prey of free-floating aquatics [412] and, partly, also of non-aquatic species [4,24]. Among all prey items determined, the ostracod genus cf. Cypretta was most abundant. It is characterized by its small body size of about 1 mm and the septae inside the carapace valves. It occurs in open, still or slowly flowing waters worldwide with many species, mostly in the southern hemisphere [26,36,39]. Cypretta is a grazer foraging for food on substrates, which is typical for most ostracods.

Copepods, which were also abundant in the traps, inhabit soil as well as free fresh water. Especially harpactocoids, which were some of the copepod prey items found in the traps, are mainly substrate-bound species, as they swim poorly [42,43]. Most Harpactocoida inhabit sandy interstitial habitats as found on the sampling site.

The identified trapped Cladocera species are mainly members of the family Macrothricidae. This family barely practices free swimming and moves forward with small leaps, by crawling with the limbs or using its antennas as levers. The long spines of the antennae on the endopods are also used for burrowing in the substrate to search for food [35,44].

The other taxonomic groups found inside the U. multifida traps can be regarded as typical (but relatively rarely occurring) bladderwort prey: members of Acari as well as larvae of diptera and water beetles (Dytiscidae) have also been reported from the traps of aquatic species [7,14,18,45,46]. These prey species are characterized by free swimming or substrate-bound behavior.

In summary, our snapshot prey analysis as presented here reveals that U. multifida is able to capture prey of a wide morphological and taxonomical range, with substrate-bound crustacean prey being prevalent. It is therefore imaginable that U. multifida is specialized on capturing such prey, which crawls towards the trap entrance zones and becomes captured. However, the prey spectrum may strongly depend on the locality where material was sampled, as all prey groups determined in this study are typical for small, shallow and temporary ponds in general. Especially crustacean populations can rise exponentially after flooding and highly abundant species may be overrepresented in the traps accordingly. Comparative analyses from several sites are necessary to investigate this further, as recently performed in the Droseraceae for the aquatic waterwheel plant (Aldrovanda vesiculosa) [47] and for terrestrial annual sundews from Drosera sect. Arachnopus [48]. Due to the highly ephemerous nature of U. multifida, comparative analysis during different times of the year are not feasible.

Since knowledge on the actual plant (predator)–prey interaction is completely absent, future studies should concern also about the actual behavior of prey (esp. Cypretta) in the vicinity of the traps and how it is actually caught (cf. [2]). Does prey get sucked into the trap, or does it actively crawl inside? The darkish traps of U. multifida are probably highly attractive for substrate-bound, shelter-seeking prey (as reported in this study), which may try to enter the trap and thereby become captured. Our observation that no algae were inside the traps, which are otherwise commonly to be found in motile bladderwort suction traps [11,18,19,25], also hints towards the existence of a passive trap type. However, we are certainly aware that much more detailed physiological, biomechanical and functional-morphological analyses are required to investigate this further. Not only in the context of this current debate it is important to continue research on the functional principle of the traps of Utricularia (and especially on U. multifida) and on its prey (cf. [13,28,31,49]).

Supporting information

S1 Table. Utricularia multifida trap length and width measurements.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

AF thanks Allen Lowrie (Duncraig, Australia) for helpful correspondence over many years and for help in acquiring plant material in 2008.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

SP gratefully acknowledges the financial support by the Academic Research Alliance JONAS (“Joint Research Network on Advanced Materials and Systems”). The article processing charge was funded by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art and the University of Freiburg in the funding programme Open Access Publishing. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Vincent O, Weißkopf C, Poppinga S, Masselter T, Speck T, Joyeux M, et al. Ultra-fast underwater suction traps. Proc Roy Soc B. 2011;278: 2909–2914. 10.1098/rspb.2010.2292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Poppinga S, Daber LE, Westermeier AS, Kruppert S, Horstmann M, Tollrian R, et al. Biomechanical analysis of prey capture in the carnivorous Southern bladderwort (Utricularia australis). Sci Rep. 2017;7: 1776. 10.1038/s41598-017-01954-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Müller UK, Berg O, Schwaner JM, Brown MD, Li G, Voesenek CJ, et al. Bladderworts, the smallest known suction feeders, generate inertia‐dominated flows to capture prey. New Phytol. 2020;228: 586–595. 10.1111/nph.16726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Darwin C. Insectivorous plants. London: Murray; 1875. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Andrikovics S, Forro L, Zsunics E. The zoogenic food composition of Utricularia vulgaris in the Lake Fertö. Opusc Zool Budapest. 1988;23: 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mette N, Wilbert N, Barthlott W. Food composition of aquatic bladderworts (Utricularia, Lentibulariaceae) in various habitats. Beitr Biol Pflanzen. 2000;72: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Harms S. The effect of bladderwort (Utricularia) predation on microcrustacean prey. Freshw Biol. 2002;47: 1608–1617. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sanabria-Aranda L, González-Bermúdez A, Torres NN, Guisande C, Manjarrés-Hernández A, Valoyes-Valois V, et al. Predation by the tropical plant Utricularia foliosa. Freshw Biol. 2006;51: 1999–2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gordon E, Pacheco S. Prey composition in the carnivorous plants Utricularia inflata and U. gibba (Lentibulariaceae) from Paria Peninsula, Venezuela. Rev Biol Trop. 2007;55: 795–803. 10.15517/rbt.v55i3-4.5956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Guiral D, Rougier C. Trap size and prey selection of two coexisting bladderwort (Utricularia) species in a pristine tropical pond (French Guiana) at different trophic levels. Ann Limnol. 2007;43: 147–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alkhalaf IA, Hübener T, Porembski S. Prey spectra of aquatic Utricularia species (Lentibulariaceae) in northeastern Germany: the role of planktonic algae. Flora. 2009;204: 700–708. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kurbatova SA, Yershov IY. Crustaceans and rotifers in the predatory feeding of Utricularia. Inland Water Biol. 2009;2: 271–275. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ceschin S, Bellini A, Salituro A, Traversetti L, Ellwood NTW. Is the capture of invertebrate prey by the aquatic carnivorous plant Utricularia australis selective? Plant Biosyst. 2021; published online before print. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brumpt E. Capture des larves de Culicides par les plantes du genre Utricularia. Ann Parasitol Hum Comp. 1925;3: 403–411. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Couret J, Notarangelo M, Veera S, LeClaire-Conway N, Ginsberg HS, LeBrun RL. Biological control of Aedes mosquito larvae with carnivorous aquatic plant, Utricularia macrorhiza. Parasit & Vectors. 2020;13: 208. 10.1186/s13071-020-04084-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hegner RW. The interrelations of protozoa and the utricles of Utricularia. Biol Bull. 1926;50: 239–270. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schumacher GT. Further notes on the occurrence of desmids in Utricularia bladders. Castanea. 1960;25: 62–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Peroutka M, Adlassnig W, Volgger M, Lendl T, Url WG, Lichtscheidl IK. Utricularia: a vegetarian carnivorous plant? Algae as prey of bladderwort in oligotrophic bogs. Plant Ecol. 2008;199: 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Alkhalaf IA, Hübener T, Porembski S. Microalgae trapped by carnivorous bladderworts (Utricularia, Lentibulariaceae): analysis, attributes and structure of the microalgae trapped. Plant Divers Evol. 2011;129: 125–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sirová D, Kreidlová V, Adamec L, Vrba J. The ability of Tetrahymena utriculariae (Ciliophora, Oligohymenophorea) to colonize traps of different species of aquatic carnivorous Utricularia. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2020;67: 608–611. 10.1111/jeu.12812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sirová D, Borovec J, Černá B, Rejmánková E, Adamec L, Vrba J. Microbial community development in the traps of aquatic Utricularia species. Aquat Bot. 2009;90: 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Caravieri FA, Ferreira AJ, Ferreira A, Clivati D, DeMiranda VFO, Araújo WL. Bacterial community associated with traps of the carnivorous plants Utricularia hydrocarpa and Genlisea filiformis. Aquat Bot. 2014;116: 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Koller-Peroutka M, Lendl T, Watzka M, Adlassnig W. Capture of algae promotes growth and propagation in aquatic Utricularia. Ann Bot. 2015;115: 227–236. 10.1093/aob/mcu236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jobson RW, Morris EC. Feeding ecology of a carnivorous bladderwort (Utricularia uliginosa, Lentibulariaceae). Austral Ecol. 2001;26: 680–691. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Płachno BJ, Wołowski K, Fleischmann A, Lowrie A, Łukaszek M. Algae and prey associated with traps of the Australian carnivorous plant Utricularia volubilis (Lentibulariaceae: Utricularia subgenus Polypompholyx) in natural habitat and in cultivation. Aust J Bot. 2014;62: 528–536. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lowrie A. Carnivorous plants of Australia Magnum Opus. Volume 3. Poole: Redfern Natural History Productions Ltd.; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lang F: Untersuchungen über Morphologie, Anatomie und Samenentwickelung von Polypompholyx und Byblis gigantea. Flora. 1901;88: 149–206. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lloyd FE. The carnivorous plants. Waltham: Chronica Botanica Co.; 1942. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Taylor P. The genus Utricularia: a taxonomic monograph. London: Kew Bulletin Additional Series XIV; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Reifenrath K, Theisen I, Schnitzler J, Porembski S, Barthlott W. Trap architecture in carnivorous Utricularia (Lentibulariaceae). Flora. 2006;201: 597–605. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Westermeier AS, Fleischmann A, Müller K, Schäferhoff B, Rubach C, Speck S, et al. Trap diversity and character evolution in carnivorous bladderworts (Utricularia, Lentibulariaceae). Sci Re.p 2017;7: 12052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Płachno BJ, Świątek P, Adamec L, Carvalho S, Miranda VFO. The trap architecture of Utricularia multifida and Utricularia westonii (subg. Polypompholyx). Front Plant Sci. 2019;10: 336. 10.3389/fpls.2019.00336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fleischmann A. Monograph of the genus Genlisea. Poole: Redfern Natural History Productions Ltd; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Winterbourn MJ, Gregson KLD. Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Entomol Soc N Z Bull. 1981;5: 1–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Smirnov NN, Timms BV. A revision of the Australian Cladocera (Crustacea). Records of the Australian Museum Supplement. 1983;1: 1–132. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.De Dekker P. Notes on the ecology and distribution of non-marine ostracods in Australia. Hydrobiologia. 1983;106: 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Madden CP. Key to genera of larvae of Australian Chironomidae (Diptera). Mus Vic Sci Rep. 2010;12: 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Leung A, Pinder AM, Edward D. Photographic guide and keys to the larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera) of southwest Western Australia. Part i, key to subfamilies and Tanypodinae. Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Karanovic I. Recent freshwater ostracods of the World. Crustacea, Ostracoda, Podocopida. Berlin: Springer; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cohuo-Durán S, Elías-Gutiérrez M, Karanovic I. On three new species of Cypretta Vávra, 1895 (Crustacea: Ostracoda) from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Zootaxa. 2013;3636: 501–524. 10.11646/zootaxa.3636.4.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cranston P. Identification guide to genera of aquatic larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of Australia and New Zealand. Zootaxa. 2019;4706: 71–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Caramujo MJ. Class Maxillopoda: Subclass Copepoda: Order Harpacticoida. Revista IDE@. 2015;91: 12. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Błedzki L, Rybak JI. Freshwater Crustacean zooplankton of Europe. Berlin: Springer; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fryer G. Evolution and adaptive radiation in the Macrothricidae (Crustacea: Cladocera): a study in comparative functional morphology and ecology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1974;269: 137–274. 10.1098/rstb.1974.0044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lim RP, Furtado JI. Population changes in the aquatic fauna inhabiting the bladderwort, Utricularia flexuosa VAHL., in a tropical swamp, Tasek Bera, Malaysia. Verh—Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol. 1975;19: 1390–1397. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Walker I. Trophic interactions within the Utricularia habitat in the reservoir of the Balbina hydroelectric powerplant (Amazonas, Brazil). Acta Limnol Bras. 2004;16: 183–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Horstmann M, Heier L, Kruppert S, Weiss LC, Tollrian R, Adamec L, et al. Comparative prey spectra analyses on the endangered aquatic carnivorous waterwheel plant (Aldrovanda vesiculosa, Droseraceae) at several naturalized microsites in the Czech Republic and Germany. Integr Organ Biol. 2019;1: oby012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Krueger T, Cross AT, Fleischmann A. Size matters: trap size primarily determines prey spectra differences among sympatric species of carnivorous sundews. Ecosphere. 2020;11: e03179. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Poppinga S, Pezzotta M, Fleischmann A. Evidence for motile suction traps in Utricularia westonii from Utricularia subgenus Polypompholyx. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter. 2020;49: 239–131. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ofer Ovadia

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-00372

Snapshot prey spectrum analysis of the phylogenetically early-diverging carnivorous Utricularia multifida from U. section Polypompholyx (Lentibulariaceae)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Poppinga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised by the three referees during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ofer Ovadia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This interesting paper by German authors aims at determining the prey spectrum in traps of aquatic Utricularia multifida, an exotic and evolutionally early-diverging lineage of the species endemic to Australia. As there are disputations among different scientific teams concerning the functioning of U. multifida traps (opened passive vs. actively capturing closed traps), this novel study not only describes the field-based prey spectrum of this remarkable species for a comparative purpose with other aquatic Utricularia, but also indirectly determines the trap functioning and, moreover, sheds light on the phylogeny of Utricularia suction traps. In this study, the authors have convincingly proven that field-grown U. multifida does capture its prey of different taxonomical groups like other typical aquatic Utricularia species, but the mechanism of prey capturing stays unclear. I add some comments or questions to improve slightly the manuscript.

p.3, l.58-59: “suction could not be observed in traps during laboratory experiments [29-31],….“ : maybe that it is not so important that they were laboratory experiments but that the studies (at least No. 31 – Plachno et al. 2019) were conducted on TC-raised plants. This fact could be crucial for the type of functioning of U. multifida traps: active in the field but passive in TC. I suggest that the authors mention that e.g.: “ observed in traps of tissue-culture raised plants during laboratory experiments [29-31],……“

p.4, l.79: Could the authors specify what was the approximate size/length of the traps? Range?

p.5 or 7: Could the authors specify the maximal approximate length of the prey captured? This datum might be substantial for decision whether the traps are active (i.e., negative pressure, water suction) or passive (i.e., eel traps).

In conclusion, this short communication should be published after a minor revision.

Reviewer #2: This paper is interesting and contributes to an area of the literature which seems quite understudied, but it is extremely short and essentially just presents a visual examination of animal prey caught by two individuals of the study species thirteen years ago. Even for a short communication this would seem very short. Is there any chance for captured items to have degraded in such a long period of storage? The introduction is sound, the methods are very brief (the collection process is not even described), the results are observational with no statistical methods, and the discussion mostly lists which organisms were observed in traps with some literature references for their behavior. It does not seem very international, although the authors say there are few studies previously which they could compare results to. I don't think this paper is sufficiently detailed for publication in PLOS One.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

This is a highly interesting study on the prey spectrum of a terrestrial carnivorous plant with suction traps. No data on prey spectrum in this species exists so far.

Here are some comments for the diverse secitions of this article:

For the M&M-section: please explain observation from the opened traps – did you wash out the trap content and investigated the medium washed out or did you only observed it in beneath the opened prey – did you use further aceto-ethanol for observation…. how was counting of so many prey-objects possible? Due to the similarities in sample handling – the article on the prey spectrum in aquatic U. gibba and U.inflata may be included, Gordon and Pacheco, 2007 (see: https://www.scielo.sa.cr/pdf/rbt/v55n3-4/art06v55n3-4.pdf ). This study also shows that, compared to vital investigations of trapped prey content like in Koller-Peroutka et al. 2015 – this approach with fixed traps in aceto-ethanol is also a powerful-tool for preservation of prey content and the results are comparable to the vital screening approach.

For the results section (and also for the discussion) some additional data would be favourable for the article: details on trap size and estimations on trap volume would be interesting for the readers – also to imagine how stuffed the traps maybe are. Furthermore, details on the trapping success for each single trap is important – are there differences in some traps? Did all traps catch successfully – or have been same traps with no prey? The numbers of prey objects for each prey are favourable for interpretation of the data. This is also interesting because of the limited sample size. Full data of individualised prey for each trap can also be included in the study or as a Table in a Supplement Part.

In the discussion section maybe this new article from March 2021 is of interest: Ceschin et al. in press, in ‘Plant Biosystems’ “Is the capture of invertebrate prey by the aquatic carnivorous plant Utricularia australis selective? (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11263504.2021.1897704)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Lubomír Adamec

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249976.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Mar 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for handling our manuscript and for sending us the reviews. We appreciate the constructive feedback very much. Please find below our responses to the individual reviewers. We hope that our manuscript is now in a publishable format for PLoS ONE.

Kind regards,

Simon Poppinga (on behalf of the other authors).

Responses to reviewer 1

This interesting paper by German authors aims at determining the prey spectrum in traps of aquatic Utricularia multifida, an exotic and evolutionally early-diverging lineage of the species endemic to Australia. As there are disputations among different scientific teams concerning the functioning of U. multifida traps (opened passive vs. actively capturing closed traps), this novel study not only describes the field-based prey spectrum of this remarkable species for a comparative purpose with other aquatic Utricularia, but also indirectly determines the trap functioning and, moreover, sheds light on the phylogeny of Utricularia suction traps. In this study, the authors have convincingly proven that field-grown U. multifida does capture its prey of different taxonomical groups like other typical aquatic Utricularia species, but the mechanism of prey capturing stays unclear. I add some comments or questions to improve slightly the manuscript.

Response: We thank reviewer 1 for the positive feedback.

p.3, l.58-59: “suction could not be observed in traps during laboratory experiments [29-31],….“ : maybe that it is not so important that they were laboratory experiments but that the studies (at least No. 31 – Plachno et al. 2019) were conducted on TC-raised plants. This fact could be crucial for the type of functioning of U. multifida traps: active in the field but passive in TC. I suggest that the authors mention that e.g.: “ observed in traps of tissue-culture raised plants during laboratory experiments [29-31],……“

Response: Since only one of the three references cited reports of experiments conducted on tissue-culture raised plant material, we decided to not apply the proposed change.

p.4, l.79: Could the authors specify what was the approximate size/length of the traps? Range?

Response: We added the following text to the Results section and included the respective SI Table: “With an average trap length of 2.3 mm (min: 1.8 mm; max: 2.7 mm) and width of 1.9 mm (min: 1.5 mm; max: 2.3 mm) (SI Table), we observed a similar overall size as reported in previous literature [27-32].”

p.5 or 7: Could the authors specify the maximal approximate length of the prey captured? This datum might be substantial for decision whether the traps are active (i.e., negative pressure, water suction) or passive (i.e., eel traps). In conclusion, this short communication should be published after a minor revision.

Response: We added the following text to the Results section: “Most captured prey had a size between 0.2-0.9 mm. Only a few prey items exceeded this length. The largest intact prey item we found was an ostracod with a body length of 1.2 mm. The total sizes of the captured coleopteran larva and midge larvae can be estimated to be around 1.3-1.8 mm, based on the sizes of the preserved head capsules found inside the traps.”

Responses to reviewer 2

This paper is interesting and contributes to an area of the literature which seems quite understudied, but it is extremely short and essentially just presents a visual examination of animal prey caught by two individuals of the study species thirteen years ago. Even for a short communication this would seem very short. Is there any chance for captured items to have degraded in such a long period of storage?

Response: We thank reviewer 2 for his/her efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We are convinced that no significant degradation had occurred, since the prey morphology and habit are conserved (while DNA might indeed have degraded somewhat over that time). The studied prey items are crustaceans, which have solid carapaces (insoluble in alcohol) which maintain all specific characters for taxonomic identification even in 200-year-old museum material (stored in alcohol or air dried). 13 years are comparatively short time spam for stored biological specimens.

The introduction is sound, the methods are very brief (the collection process is not even described)

Response: No additional info could be added to the description of Material and Methods we provide in the manuscript: two plants were randomly picked and traps detached from the plant and fixed in aceto-ethanol.

the results are observational with no statistical methods,and the discussion mostly lists which organisms were observed in traps with some literature references for their behavior.

Response: Since we were not able to collect and identify prey from different plants and/or habitats comparatively, statistical analyses are not necessary in our approach.

It does not seem very international, although the authors say there are few studies previously which they could compare results to. I don't think this paper is sufficiently detailed for publication in PLOS One.

Response: We strongly disagree with reviewer 2 in this point. Since the respective plant material is very difficult to obtain and no other published records are available, our results constitute the only available data on the diet of this enigmatic carnivorous plants. We are pleased to see that the editor as well as reviewers 1 and 3 share our opinion that the data presented are indeed important and robust, thereby warranting publication in a respectable peer-reviewed and international journal.

Responses to reviewer 3

Dear authors, This is a highly interesting study on the prey spectrum of a terrestrial carnivorous plant with suction traps. No data on prey spectrum in this species exists so far. Here are some comments for the diverse secitions of this article:

Response: We thank reviewer 3 for the positive feedback.

For the M&M-section: please explain observation from the opened traps – did you wash out the trap content and investigated the medium washed out or did you only observed it in beneath the opened prey – did you use further aceto-ethanol for observation….

Response: We added the following text to the Materials and Methods section: “Traps were opened with forceps at the Department of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany and prey was carefully rinsed out. Block bowls were used and covered with a glass plate as often as possible to keep evaporation low (and thus evaporation-induced convection in the samples).”

how was counting of so many prey-objects possible?

Response: We added the following text to the Materials and Methods section: “Prey was separated from detritus in several portions, presorted into groups with the help of eyelashes, photographed with an Olympus SZX 16 (Olympus, Tokio, Japan) stereo microscope equipped with a TSO camera (Thalheim Spezialoptik GmbH, Pulsnitz, Germany), counted and identified according to the literature [34-41]. Trap sizes were measured with the same optical setup.”

Due to the similarities in sample handling – the article on the prey spectrum in aquatic U. gibba and U.inflata may be included, Gordon and Pacheco, 2007 (see: https://www.scielo.sa.cr/pdf/rbt/v55n3-4/art06v55n3-4.pdf ).

Response: We added the respective reference in the Materials and Methods section: “Plant material was fixed in aceto-ethanol (3:1) (cf. [9,23]).”

This study also shows that, compared to vital investigations of trapped prey content like in Koller-Peroutka et al. 2015 – this approach with fixed traps in aceto-ethanol is also a powerful-tool for preservation of prey content and the results are comparable to the vital screening approach.

Response: We added the respective reference in the Materials and Methods section: “Plant material was fixed in aceto-ethanol (3:1) (cf. [9,23]).”

For the results section (and also for the discussion) some additional data would be favourable for the article: details on trap size and estimations on trap volume would be interesting for the readers – also to imagine how stuffed the traps maybe are.

Response: We now give additional data, see our response to reviewer 1. However, only length and widths measurements are available and unfortunately no volumetric data could be obtained due to the complex architecture of the traps. In a future approach we are planning to measure trap volumes directly via modified µCT specimen preparation protocols, see our recently published paper: Westermeier et al. (2020) Annals of Botany 126: 1099–1107. DOI:10.1093/aob/mcaa135.

Furthermore, details on the trapping success for each single trap is important – are there differences in some traps? Did all traps catch successfully – or have been same traps with no prey? The numbers of prey objects for each prey are favourable for interpretation of the data. This is also interesting because of the limited sample size. Full data of individualised prey for each trap can also be included in the study or as a Table in a Supplement Part

Response: As we were initially aiming mostly for the prey spectrum of U. multifida and 17 traps were undoubtedly too few to examine the traps’ foraging characteristics, we (unfortunately) pooled the prey per plant, which prevents a trap-wise analysis. Accordingly, we cannot tell the maximum number of prey per trap, but even the averaged prey number with 13 animals per trap is impressive.

In the discussion section maybe this new article from March 2021 is of interest: Ceschin et al. in press, in ‘Plant Biosystems’ “Is the capture of invertebrate prey by the aquatic carnivorous plant Utricularia australis selective? (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11263504.2021.1897704)

Response: We added the new reference [13] in the Discussion and changed the subsequent reference numbers accordingly: “Prey spectra have been thoroughly investigated for several free-floating aquatic species from U. section Utricularia, revealing that members … are commonly caught [4-13].”

Additional changes:

We added titles for Figure 1 and Table 1.

The acknowledgments are now more detailed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ofer Ovadia

29 Mar 2021

Snapshot prey spectrum analysis of the phylogenetically early-diverging carnivorous Utricularia multifida from U. section Polypompholyx (Lentibulariaceae)

PONE-D-21-00372R1

Dear Dr. Poppinga,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ofer Ovadia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ofer Ovadia

30 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-00372R1

Snapshot prey spectrum analysis of the phylogenetically early-diverging carnivorous Utricularia multifida from U. section Polypompholyx (Lentibulariaceae)

Dear Dr. Poppinga:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ofer Ovadia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Utricularia multifida trap length and width measurements.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES