| Literature DB >> 21423738 |
Heather M Whitney1, Rosa Poetes, Ullrich Steiner, Lars Chittka, Beverley J Glover.
Abstract
The petal epidermis acts not only as a barrier to the outside world but also as a point of interaction between the flower and potential pollinators. The presence of conical petal epidermal cells has previously been shown to influence the attractiveness of the flower to pollinating insects. Using Antirrhinum isogenic lines differing only in the presence of a single epidermal structure, conical cells, we were able to investigate how the structure of the epidermis influences petal wettability by measuring the surface contact angle of water drops. Conical cells have a significant impact on how water is retained on the flower surface, which may have indirect consequences for pollinator behaviour. We discuss how the petal epidermis is a highly multifunctional one and how a battery of methods, including the use of isogenic lines, is required to untangle the impacts of specific epidermal properties in an ecological context.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21423738 PMCID: PMC3053357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Diagram illustrating wettability behaviour of water on a rough surface.
A. Wenzel wetting, where the water is in close contact with the surface. B. Cassie-Baxter wetting where air is trapped between parts of the surface and the drop.
Figure 2Conical-celled and flat-celled petal surfaces.
A. Scanning Electron Microscope image (SEM) of wild-type Antirrhinum petal. B. SEM of mixta mutant Antirrhinum petal.
Figure 3Measurement of floral surface wettability.
A1. Advancing angle of drop on surface showing Cassie-Baxter wetting. A2. Receding angle of drop showing Cassie-Baxter wetting. A3. Ease of drop removal on a surface showing Cassie-Baxter wetting. B1. Advancing angle of drop on surface showing Partial Cassie-Baxter wetting. B2. Receding angle of drop showing Partial Cassie-Baxter wetting. B3. Drop removal on a surface showing Partial Cassie-Baxter wetting, showing that while initial removal is similar to perfect Cassie-Baxter wetting, a localized point remains. C1. Advancing angle of drop on surface showing Wenzel wetting. C2. Receding angle of drop showing Wenzel wetting. C3. Attempted drop removal on a surface showing Wenzel wetting.
Designated wettability criteria and occurrence in Antirrhinum wild type (Mx) and mixta (mx) lines.
| Perfect Cassie-Baxter wetting | Partial Cassie-Baxter wetting | Wenzel wetting | |
| Picture Sequence A | Picture Sequence B | Picture Sequence C | |
| Ease of drop removal | Very easy | Easy but with one localised point remaining | Not easy |
| Number of examples in wild-type Antirrhinum flowers | 4 | 7 | 20 |
| Average angle when drop was: | Average angle when drop was: | Average angle when drop was: | |
| advancing (148±6) | advancing (140±18) | advancing (135±17) | |
| receding (109±22) | receding (91±16) | receding (73±19) | |
| Number of examples in | 0 | 0 | 14 |
| Average angle when drop was: | |||
| advancing (120±14) | |||
| receding (74±14) |
Picture sequences refer to Figure 3.