Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 98, Issue 5, pp 381–387 | Cite as

Beetle adhesive hairs differ in stiffness and stickiness: in vivo adhesion measurements on individual setae

  • James M. R. Bullock
  • Walter Federle
Original Paper

Abstract

Leaf beetles are able to climb on smooth and rough surfaces using arrays of micron-sized adhesive hairs (setae) of varying morphology. We report the first in vivo adhesive force measurements of individual setae in the beetle Gastrophysa viridula, using a smooth polystyrene substrate attached to a glass capillary micro-cantilever. The beetles possess three distinct adhesive pads on each leg which differ in function and setal morphology. Visualisation of pull-offs allowed forces to be measured for each tarsal hair type. Male discoidal hairs adhered with the highest forces (919 ± 104 nN, mean ± SE), followed by spatulate (582 ± 59 nN) and pointed (127 ± 19 nN) hairs. Discoidal hairs were stiffer in the normal direction (0.693 ± 0.111 N m−1) than spatulate (0.364 ± 0.039 N m−1) or pointed (0.192 ± 0.044 N m−1) hairs. The greater adhesion on smooth surfaces and the higher stability of discoidal hairs help male beetles to achieve strong adhesion on the elytra of females during copulation. A comparison of pull-off forces measured for single setae and whole pads (arrays) revealed comparable levels of adhesive stress. This suggests that beetles are able to achieve equal load sharing across their adhesive pads so that detachment through peeling is prevented.

Keywords

Fibrillar adhesion Biomechanics Insects 

References

  1. Arzt E, Gorb S, Spolenak R (2003) From micro to nano contacts in biological attachment devices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10603–10606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autumn K, Liang YA, Hsieh ST, Zesch W, Chan WP, Kenny TW, Fearing R, Full RJ (2000) Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature 405:681–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autumn K, Peattie AM (2002) Mechanisms of adhesion in geckos. Integr Comp Biol 42:1081–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autumn K, Dittmore A, Santos D, Spenko M, Cutkosky M (2006a) Frictional adhesion: a new angle on gecko attachment. J Exp Biol 209:3569–3579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Autumn K, Hansen W (2006) Ultrahydrophobicity indicates a non-adhesive default state in gecko setae. J Comp Physiol A 192:1205–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Autumn K, Hsieh ST, Dudek DM, Chen J, Chitaphan C, Full RJ (2006b) Dynamics of geckos running vertically. J Exp Biol 209:260–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autumn K, Majidi C, Groff RE, Dittmore A, Fearing R (2006c) Effective elastic modulus of isolated gecko setal arrays. J Exp Biol 209:3558–3568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autumn K, Gravish N (2008) Gecko adhesion: evolutionary nanotechnology. Philos T Roy Soc A 366:1575–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betz O (2003) Structure of the tarsi in some Stenus species (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae): external morphology, ultrastructure, and tarsal secretion. J Morphol 255:24–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock J, Drechsler P, Federle W (2008) Comparison of smooth and hairy attachment pads in insects: friction, adhesion and mechanisms for direction-dependence. J Exp Biol 211:3333–3343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bullock JMR, Federle W (2009) Division of labour and sex differences between fibrillar, tarsal adhesive pads in beetles: effective elastic modulus and attachment performance. J Exp Biol 212:1876–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemente CJ, Federle W (2008) Pushing versus pulling: division of labour between tarsal attachment pads in cockroaches. Proc R Soc B 275:1329–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clemente CJ, Beale A, Bullock JMR, Federle W (2010) Evidence for self-cleaning in fluid-based smooth and hairy adhesive systems of insects. J Exp Biol 213:635–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. del Campo A, Greiner C, Arzt E (2007) Contact shape controls adhesion of bioinspired fibrillar surfaces. Langmuir 23:10235–10243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drechsler P, Federle W (2006) Biomechanics of smooth adhesive pads in insects: influence of tarsal secretion on attachment performance. J Comp Physiol A 192:1213–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eimüller T, Guttmann P, Gorb SN (2008) Terminal contact elements of insect attachment devices studied by transmission X-ray microscopy. J Exp Biol 211:1958–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Federle W, Riehle M, Curtis ASG, Full RJ (2002) An integrative study of insect adhesion: mechanics and wet adhesion of pretarsal pads in ants. Integr Comp Biol 42:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Federle W (2006) Why are so many adhesive pads hairy? J Exp Biol 209:2611–2621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao H, Wang X, Yao H, Gorb S, Arzt E (2005) Mechanics of hierarchical adhesion structures of geckos. Mech Mater 37:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiselhardt SF, Geiselhardt S, Peschke K (2009) Comparison of tarsal and cuticular chemistry in the leaf beetle Gastrophysa viridula (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and an evaluation of solid-phase microextraction and solvent extraction techniques. Chemoecology 19:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gorb E, Gorb S (2009) Effects of surface topography and chemistry of Rumex obtusifolius leaves on the attachment of the beetle Gastrophysa viridula. Entom Exp Appl 130:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorb SN, Varenberg M (2007) Mushroom-shaped geometry of contact elements in biological adhesive systems. J Adhes Sci Technol 21:1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gravish N, Wilkinson M, Autumn K (2008) Frictional and elastic energy in gecko adhesive detachment. J R Soc Interface 5:339–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen WR, Autumn K (2005) Evidence for self-cleaning in gecko setae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:385–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedrick TL (2008) Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. Bioinspir Biomim 3:034001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber G, Gorb SN, Spolenak R, Arzt E (2005) Resolving the nanoscale adhesion of individual gecko spatulae by atomic force microscopy. Biol Lett 1:2–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hui C-Y, Glassmaker NJ, Tang T, Jagota A (2004) Design of biomimetic fibrillar interfaces: 2. Mechanics of enhanced adhesion. J R Soc Interface 1:35–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jiao Y, Gorb S, Scherge M (2000) Adhesion measured on the attachment pads of Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera, Insecta). J Exp Biol 203:1887–1895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaelble DH (1960) Theory and analysis of peel adhesion: bond stresses and distributions. Trans Soc Rheol 4:45–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kesel AB, Martin A, Seidl T (2004) Getting a grip on spider attachment: an AFM approach to microstructure adhesion in arthropods. Smart Mater Struct 13:512–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Majidi CS, Groff RE, Fearing RS (2005) Attachment of fiber array adhesive through side contact. J Appl Phys 98:103521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murphy MP, Aksak B, Sitti M (2007) Adhesion and anisotropic friction enhancements of angled heterogeneous micro-fiber arrays with spherical and spatula tips. J Adhes Sci Technol 21:1281–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelletier Y, Smilowitz Z (1987) Specialized tarsal hairs on adult male Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), hamper its locomotion on smooth surfaces. Can Entomol 119:1139–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Persson BNJ, Gorb S (2003) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic plates with application to biological systems. J Chem Phys 119:11437–11444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spolenak R, Gorb S, Gao H, Arzt E (2004) Effects of contact shape on the scaling of biological attachments. Proc R Soc Lond A 460:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spuskanyuk AV, McMeeking RM, Deshpande VS, Arzt E (2008) The effect of shape on the adhesion of fibrillar surfaces. Acta Biomater 4:1669–1676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stork NE (1980a) A scanning electron microscope study of tarsal adhesive setae in the Coleoptera. Zool J LinnSoc 68:173–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stork NE (1980b) Experimental analysis of adhesion of Chrysolina polita (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) on a variety of surfaces. J Exp Biol 88:91–107Google Scholar
  39. Vincent JFV, Wegst UGK (2004) Design and mechanical properties of insect cuticle. Arthropod Struct Devel 33:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Voigt D, Schuppert JM, Dattinger S, Gorb SN (2008) Sexual dimorphism in the attachment ability of the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to rough substrates. J Insect Physiol 54:765–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations