Plant surfaces with cuticular folds and their replicas: Influence of microstructuring and surface chemistry on the attachment of a leaf beetle

Prüm, Bettina; Bohn, Holger Florian; Seidel, Robin; Rubach, Stephan; Speck, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.01.030

Cited by 66 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, one can say that the smaller the contact angle, the higher the free energy of a surface. Although in some studies Gorb et al, 2010;Hosoda and Gorb, 2012;Lüken et al, 2009;Prüm et al, 2013) the focus was laid on hairy attachment systems of different beetle species, others were done on smooth attachment organs of moths (Al Bitar et al, 2009) and sawfly larvae (Voigt and Gorb, 2012). The results of these papers are not consistent.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

“…The results of these papers are not consistent. For example, in two studies (Al Bitar et al, 2009;Prüm et al, 2013), no differences in the ability of beetles to attach onto surfaces with different contact angles were detected, whereas in different studies (Lüken et al, 2009;Gorb et al, 2010), the insects performed, by far, better on surfaces with higher surface energies. Thus, the role of surface energy on the adhesion ability of the insects remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…*The contact angle was not measureable for most droplets as they were spreading on the surface. 1f and 1m, adult females and males, respectively (Al Bitar et al, 2009); 2a, adult females ); 3f and 3m, adult females and males, respectively (Lüken et al, 2009); 4f and 4m, adult females and males, respectively (Gorb et al, 2010); 5f, adult females (Hosoda and Gorb, 2012); 6l l and 6l t , larvae in longitudinal and transversal orientation, respectively (Voigt and Gorb, 2012); 7m, adult males (Prüm et al, 2013); 8l and 8a, larvae and adults, respectively (present paper).…”

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attachment ofGalerucella nymphaeae(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)to surfaces with different surface energy

Grohmann

Blankenstein

Koops

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies deal with insect attachment onto surfaces with different roughness; however, little is known about insect attachment onto surfaces that have different chemistry. In the present study, we describe the attachment structures of the water-lily leaf beetle Galerucella nymphaeae and test the hypothesis that the larval and adult stages generate the strongest attachment on surfaces with contact angles that are similar to those of leaves of their host plants. The larvae bear a smooth attachment system with arolium-like structures at their legs and a pygopodium at the abdomen tip. Adults have pointed setae on the ventral side of the two proximal tarsomeres and densely arranged spatula-shaped ones on their third tarsomere. In a centrifugal force tester, larvae and adults attained the highest friction forces and safety factors on surfaces with a water contact angle of 83 deg compared to those of 6, 26 and 109 deg. This comes close to the contact angle of their host plant Nuphar lutea (86 deg). The similarity in larval and adult performances might be a result of the similar chemical composition of their attachment fluid. We compare our findings with previous studies on the forces that insects generate on surfaces with different surface energies.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attachment ofGalerucella nymphaeae(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)to surfaces with different surface energy

Grohmann

Blankenstein

Koops

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was also found that surface hydrophobicity alone resulted in some decrease in the attachment force of the beetles, but when combined with surface micro-roughness it caused an even more pronounced reduction. Prüm et al [17] measured the traction force of the beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata on different plant surfaces and their artificial replicas, and reported that surface roughness exerted a strong influence on attachment, whereas surface chemistry was found to have no significant influence, despite both of these affecting the magnitude of water contact angles (CAs). Additionally, the attachment of the leaf beetle Gastrophysa viridula did not strongly depend on the free energy of the surface of the substrate [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

England¹,

Sato²,

Yagihashi³

et al. 2016

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe attachment ability of ladybird beetles Coccinella septempunctata was systematically investigated on eight types of surface, each with different chemical and topographical properties. The results of traction force tests clearly demonstrated that chemical surface properties, such as static/dynamic de-wettability of water and oil caused by specific chemical compositions, had no significant effect on the attachment of the beetles. Surface roughness was found to be the dominant factor, strongly affecting the attachment ability of the beetles.

show abstract

“…Leaf surfaces may be relatively smooth, but their veins give high amplitude ridges that are distributed over their surfaces. Indeed, cuticular folds have been demonstrated to be slippery for beetles [9–10], and stomata also contribute to a leaf’s roughness. Additionally, on some plants (e.g., the stems of Macaranga trees), one may find epicuticular wax crystals [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the going gets rough – studying the effect of surface roughness on the adhesive abilities of tree frogs

Crawford¹,

Endlein²,

Pham³

et al. 2016

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree frogs need to adhere to surfaces of various roughnesses in their natural habitats; these include bark, leaves and rocks. Rough surfaces can alter the effectiveness of their toe pads, due to factors such as a change of real contact area and abrasion of the pad epithelium. Here, we tested the effect of surface roughness on the attachment abilities of the tree frog Litoria caerulea. This was done by testing shear and adhesive forces on artificial surfaces with controlled roughness, both on single toe pads and whole animal scales. It was shown that frogs can stick 2–3 times better on small scale roughnesses (3–6 µm asperities), producing higher adhesive and frictional forces, but relatively poorly on the larger scale roughnesses tested (58.5–562.5 µm asperities). Our experiments suggested that, on such surfaces, the pads secrete insufficient fluid to fill the space under the pad, leaving air pockets that would significantly reduce the Laplace pressure component of capillarity. Therefore, we measured how well the adhesive toe pad would conform to spherical asperities of known sizes using interference reflection microscopy. Based on experiments where the conformation of the pad to individual asperities was examined microscopically, our calculations indicate that the pad epithelium has a low elastic modulus, making it highly deformable.

show abstract

Plant surfaces with cuticular folds and their replicas: Influence of microstructuring and surface chemistry on the attachment of a leaf beetle

Cited by 66 publications

References 35 publications

Attachment ofGalerucella nymphaeae(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)to surfaces with different surface energy

Attachment ofGalerucella nymphaeae(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)to surfaces with different surface energy

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

When the going gets rough – studying the effect of surface roughness on the adhesive abilities of tree frogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About