Fatal attraction: flowers lure pollinators as prey in the carnivorous Drosera hookeri (Droseraceae)
Abstract
Background and Aims: Pollinator–prey conflict can occur in carnivorous plants when they ensnare pollinators in their trap leaves. Although spatial or cue separation often abates this conflict, this study investigates Drosera hookeri, which produces flowers in close proximity to leaf traps. We evaluate pollinator–prey conflict and test the hypothesis that flowers facilitate pollinator capture.
Methods: Field studies were conducted between 2007 and 2021 in eastern Australia; the extended duration was necessary because drought conditions often caused sparse flowering or prevented plant emergence. Pollinator diversity and visitation were assessed using video monitoring, and pan traps estimated community abundance. Hand-pollination experiments determined pollinator dependence and pollen limitation. Arthropod abundance in trap leaves was measured before, during and after flowering, and a paired experiment compared prey capture between plants with and without flowers.
Results: Drosera hookeri is highly autofertile and self-compatible, with weak pollen limitation in field conditions. We observed a pollinator–prey conflict: pollinators (predominantly Melangyna viridiceps) accounted for 57 % of identified prey, indicating that flowers and nearby trap leaves overlap in their effects. Pollinators were not attracted to plants lacking flowers. In flowering plants, pollinators were occasionally tipped into traps when flimsy pedicels (hypothesised to respond to water stress) bent under their weight.
Conclusions: Drosera hookeri exhibits a pollinator–prey conflict in a resource-limited system. Pollinator capture appears to result from foraging behaviour and floral proximity rather than direct attraction to traps, contrasting with suggestions that pollinators avoid traps owing to ‘intelligence’ or that Drosera mucilage is optimized for smaller prey. Its impact is likely to be asymmetric, with stronger potential effects on male function through loss of pollen vectors, whereas female function is buffered by autonomous selfing.
Related
- Male function matters: extending the preconditions for pollinator–prey conflict. A commentary on ‘Fatal attraction: flowers lure pollinators as prey in the carnivorous Drosera hookeri (Droseraceae)’
- Do carnivorous plants exploit prey perceptual bias? A case study in Drosera finlaysonii with yellow-green traps
- Conserved and Promoter-Specific Cis-Regulatory Features of Digestion-Associated Chitinase Genes in Droseraceae
- Interspecific variation in nectar and pollen reward among plant species commonly planted to support pollinators
- Shedding light on fenestrations in carnivorous pitcher plants: a test for convergent function
BibTeX
@article{gross2026fatal,
title = {{Fatal attraction: flowers lure pollinators as prey in the carnivorous Drosera hookeri (Droseraceae)}},
author = {Caroline L Gross and Joshua D Whitehead and Wendy A Waters and K David Mackay and Ellis S G Mackay and Camila Silveira Souza},
journal = {Annals of Botany},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
doi = {10.1093/aob/mcag170},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcag170},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Fatal attraction: flowers lure pollinators as prey in the carnivorous Drosera hookeri (Droseraceae)
AU - Caroline L Gross
AU - Joshua D Whitehead
AU - Wendy A Waters
AU - K David Mackay
AU - Ellis S G Mackay
AU - Camila Silveira Souza
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/06/22
JO - Annals of Botany
DO - 10.1093/aob/mcag170
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcag170
AB - Background and Aims: Pollinator–prey conflict can occur in carnivorous plants when they ensnare pollinators in their trap leaves. Although spatial or cue separation often abates this conflict, this study investigates Drosera hookeri, which produces flowers in close proximity to leaf traps. We evaluate pollinator–prey conflict and test the hypothesis that flowers facilitate pollinator capture. Methods: Field studies were conducted between 2007 and 2021 in eastern Australia; the extended duration was necessary because drought conditions often caused sparse flowering or prevented plant emergence. Pollinator diversity and visitation were assessed using video monitoring, and pan traps estimated community abundance. Hand-pollination experiments determined pollinator dependence and pollen limitation. Arthropod abundance in trap leaves was measured before, during and after flowering, and a paired experiment compared prey capture between plants with and without flowers. Results: Drosera hookeri is highly autofertile and self-compatible, with weak pollen limitation in field conditions. We observed a pollinator–prey conflict: pollinators (predominantly Melangyna viridiceps) accounted for 57 % of identified prey, indicating that flowers and nearby trap leaves overlap in their effects. Pollinators were not attracted to plants lacking flowers. In flowering plants, pollinators were occasionally tipped into traps when flimsy pedicels (hypothesised to respond to water stress) bent under their weight. Conclusions: Drosera hookeri exhibits a pollinator–prey conflict in a resource-limited system. Pollinator capture appears to result from foraging behaviour and floral proximity rather than direct attraction to traps, contrasting with suggestions that pollinators avoid traps owing to ‘intelligence’ or that Drosera mucilage is optimized for smaller prey. Its impact is likely to be asymmetric, with stronger potential effects on male function through loss of pollen vectors, whereas female function is buffered by autonomous selfing.
SN - 0305-7364
SN - 1095-8290
ER -