The cost-benefit model for the evolution of carnivory in plants, proposed by Thomas Givnish (1984), was experimentally tested only a few times and the results are quite contradictory. Certain studies show the results expected according the model (Farnsworth & Ellison, 2008; Pavlovic, 2009), while others show the contrary (Mendéz and Karlsson, 1999; Wakefield et al. 200; Adamec, 2008). In spite of this ambiguity, Givnish’s theory is still considered to be true, at least by most authors. Is this the result of some kind of inertia in the area or because of the lack of a better explanation?
The cost/benefit model proposed by Thomas Givnish is, with slight modifications, probably true and as far as I know, nothing can better explain evolution of botanical carnivory. of course, each experiment you perform is dependent on dose of nutrients and time needed for growth of new leaves. For example, mendez and karlsson measured photosynthesis only 1 week after feeding. Wakefield did not measure photosynthesis on new leaves but only on them that were fed. It seems that for aquatic carnivorous plants, carnivory stimulate growth of shoot apex and Ellison and Adamec (2011) modified cost/benefit model for aquatic carnivorous plants. Or see also Lubomír Adamec, 2011. By which mechanism does prey capture enhance plant growth in aquatic carnivorous plants: Stimulation of shoot apex?, Fundam. Appl. Limnol. Vol. 178/2, 171–176. Also the respiratory cost must be taken into account at least in plant with active trapping mechanism (e.g. see my publication in Ann Bot., Pavlovič et al., 2010 or Laakkonen modification in Utricularia: A new model for the evolution of carnivory in the bladderwort plant (utricularia): adaptive changes in cytochrome C oxidase (COX) provide respiratory power. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2006 Nov;8(6):758-64.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany