56 research outputs found

    A novel type of nutritional ant-plant interaction: ant partners of carnivorous pitcher plants prevent nutrient export by dipteran pitcher infauna.

    Get PDF
    Many plants combat herbivore and pathogen attack indirectly by attracting predators of their herbivores. Here we describe a novel type of insect-plant interaction where a carnivorous plant uses such an indirect defence to prevent nutrient loss to kleptoparasites. The ant Camponotus schmitzi is an obligate inhabitant of the carnivorous pitcher plant Nepenthes bicalcarata in Borneo. It has recently been suggested that this ant-plant interaction is a nutritional mutualism, but the detailed mechanisms and the origin of the ant-derived nutrient supply have remained unexplained. We confirm that N. bicalcarata host plant leaves naturally have an elevated (15)N/(14)N stable isotope abundance ratio (δ(15)N) when colonised by C. schmitzi. This indicates that a higher proportion of the plants' nitrogen is insect-derived when C. schmitzi ants are present (ca. 100%, vs. 77% in uncolonised plants) and that more nitrogen is available to them. We demonstrated direct flux of nutrients from the ants to the host plant in a (15)N pulse-chase experiment. As C. schmitzi ants only feed on nectar and pitcher contents of their host, the elevated foliar δ(15)N cannot be explained by classic ant-feeding (myrmecotrophy) but must originate from a higher efficiency of the pitcher traps. We discovered that C. schmitzi ants not only increase the pitchers' capture efficiency by keeping the pitchers' trapping surfaces clean, but they also reduce nutrient loss from the pitchers by predating dipteran pitcher inhabitants (infauna). Consequently, nutrients the pitchers would have otherwise lost via emerging flies become available as ant colony waste. The plants' prey is therefore conserved by the ants. The interaction between C. schmitzi, N. bicalcarata and dipteran pitcher infauna represents a new type of mutualism where animals mitigate the damage by nutrient thieves to a plant

    Sticking under wet conditions: the remarkable attachment abilities of the torrent frog, staurois guttatus

    Get PDF
    Tree frogs climb smooth surfaces utilising capillary forces arising from an air-fluid interface around their toe pads, whereas torrent frogs are able to climb in wet environments near waterfalls where the integrity of the meniscus is at risk. This study compares the adhesive capabilities of a torrent frog to a tree frog, investigating possible adaptations for adhesion under wet conditions. We challenged both frog species to cling to a platform which could be tilted from the horizontal to an upside-down orientation, testing the frogs on different levels of roughness and water flow. On dry, smooth surfaces, both frog species stayed attached to overhanging slopes equally well. In contrast, under both low and high flow rate conditions, the torrent frogs performed significantly better, even adhering under conditions where their toe pads were submerged in water, abolishing the meniscus that underlies capillarity. Using a transparent platform where areas of contact are illuminated, we measured the contact area of frogs during platform rotation under dry conditions. Both frog species not only used the contact area of their pads to adhere, but also large parts of their belly and thigh skin. In the tree frogs, the belly and thighs often detached on steeper slopes, whereas the torrent frogs increased the use of these areas as the slope angle increased. Probing small areas of the different skin parts with a force transducer revealed that forces declined significantly in wet conditions, with only minor differences between the frog species. The superior abilities of the torrent frogs were thus due to the large contact area they used on steep, overhanging surfaces. SEM images revealed slightly elongated cells in the periphery of the toe pads in the torrent frogs, with straightened channels in between them which could facilitate drainage of excess fluid underneath the pad

    Adamantinoma of typical and atypical localisation

    No full text

    Cortical and striatal neurone number in Huntington's disease

    Get PDF
    The total cortical and striatal neurone and glial numbers were estimated in five cases of Huntington's disease (three males, two females) and five ageand sex-matched control cases. Serial 500-l-lm-thick gallocyanin-stained frontal sections through the left hemisphere were analysed using Cavalieri's principle for volume and the optical disector for cell density estimations. The average cortical neurone number of five controls (mean age 53±13 years, range 36-72 years) was 5.97x 109±320x 106 , the average number of small striatal neurones was 82 X 106± 15.8 X 106• The left striatum (caudatum, putamen, and accumbens) contained a mean of 273 X 106±53 X 106 glial cells (oligodendrocytes, astrocytes and unc1assifiable glial profiles). The mean cortical neurone number in Huntington's disease patients (mean age 49±14 years, range 36-75 years) was diminished by about 33 % to 3.99x109±218x106 nerve cells (P ::;:::: 0.012, MannWhitney V-test). The mean number of small striatal neurones decreased tremendously to 9.72 X 106 ± 3.64 X 106 (-88 % ). The decrease in total glial cells was less pronounced (193 X 106±26 X 106) but the mean glial index, the numerical ratio of glial cells per neurone, increased from 3.35 to 22.59 in Huntington's disease. Qualitatively, neuronal loss was most pronounced in supragranular layers of primary sensory areas (Brodmann's areae 3,1,2; area 17, area 41). Layer HIc pyramidal cells were preferentially lost in association areas of the temporal, frontal, and parietal lobes, whereas spared layer IV granule cells formed a conspicuous band between layer IH and V in these fields. Methodological issues are discussed in context with previous investigations and similarities and differences of laminar and lobar nerve cellloss in Huntington's disease are compared with nerve cell degent-ration in other neuropsychiatric diseases

    Local sudomotor attacks in the left ulnar nerve area

    No full text
    corecore