Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 192, Issue 11, pp 1213–1222 | Cite as

Biomechanics of smooth adhesive pads in insects: influence of tarsal secretion on attachment performance

  • Patrick Drechsler
  • Walter Federle
Original Paper


Many insects possess smooth adhesive pads on their legs, which adhere by thin films of a two-phasic secretion. To understand the function of such fluid-based adhesive systems, we simultaneously measured adhesion, friction and contact area in single pads of stick insects (Carausius morosus). Shear stress was largely independent of normal force and increased with velocity, seemingly consistent with the viscosity-effect of a continuous fluid film. However, measurements of the remaining force 2 min after a sliding movement show that adhesive pads can sustain considerable static friction. Repeated sliding movements and multiple consecutive pull-offs to deplete adhesive secretion showed that on a smooth surface, friction and adhesion strongly increased with decreasing amount of fluid. In contrast, pull-off forces significantly decreased on a rough substrate. Thus, the secretion does not generally increase attachment but does so only on rough substrates, where it helps to maximize contact area. When slides were repeated at one position so that secretion could accumulate, sliding shear stress decreased but static friction remained clearly present. This suggests that static friction which is biologically important to prevent sliding is based on non-Newtonian properties of the adhesive emulsion rather than on a direct contact between the cuticle and the substrate.


Wet adhesion Shear stress Emulsion Attachment devices Carausius morosus 



We wish to thank Andreas Eckart for helping in the development of motor control programs in LabVIEW. This study was financially supported by research grants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 567 “Mechanisms of interspecific interactions of organisms” and Emmy-Noether grant FE 547/1-3 to WF).


  1. Barnes H (1994) Rheology of emulsions—a review. Colloids Surf A 91:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes J, Smith J, Oines C, Mundl R (2002) Bionics and wet grip. Tire Technol Int 12/2002:56–60Google Scholar
  3. Barquins M, Roberts A (1986) Rubber-friction variation with rate and temperature—some new observations. J Phys D Appl Phys 19:547–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betz O (2002) Performance and adaptive value of tarsal morphology in rove beetles of the genus Stenus (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). J Exp Biol 205:1097–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beutel RG, Gorb SN (2001) Ultrastructure of attachment specializations of hexapods, (Arthropoda): evolutionary patterns inferred from a revised ordinal phylogeny. J Zool Syst Evol Res 39:177–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhushan B (2003) Adhesion and stiction: Mechanisms, measurement techniques, and methods for reduction. J Vac Sci Technol B 21:2262–2296. DOI 10.1116/1.1627336Google Scholar
  7. Bowden F, Tabor D (1950) The friction and lubrication of solids. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Brochard-Wyart F, de Gennes PG (1994) Dewetting of a water film between a solid and a rubber. J Phys Condens Matter 6:A9–A12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole., Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewitz H (1884) Über die Fortbewegung der Thiere an senkrechten Flächen vermittels eines Secretes. Pflügers Arch Ges Physiol 33:440–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon A, Croghan P, Gowing R (1990) The mechanism by which aphids adhere to smooth surfaces. J Exp Biol 152:243–253Google Scholar
  12. Edwards J, Tarkanian M (1970) The adhesive pads of Heteroptera: a re-examination. Proc R Entom Soc Lond A 45:1–5Google Scholar
  13. Federle W, Endlein T (2004) Locomotion and adhesion: dynamic control of adhesive surface contact in ants. Arthr Struct Dev 33:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federle W, Brainerd E, McMahon T, Hölldobler B (2001) Biomechanics of the movable pretarsal adhesive organ in ants and bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6215–6220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federle W, Riehle M, Curtis A, Full R (2002) An integrative study of insect adhesion: mechanics and wet adhesion of pretarsal pads in ants. Integr Comp Biol 42:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federle W, Baumgartner W, Hölldobler B (2004) Biomechanics of ant adhesive pads: frictional forces are rate- and temperature-dependent. J Exp Biol 207:67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Francis B, Horn R (2001) Apparatus-specific analysis of fluid adhesion measurements. J Appl Phys 89:4167–4174. DOI 10.1063/1.1351057Google Scholar
  18. Fuller KNG, Tabor D (1975) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids. Proc R Soc Lond A 345:327–342Google Scholar
  19. Gorb S (2001) Attachment devices of insect cuticle. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorb S, Gorb E (2004) Ontogenesis of the attachment ability in the bug Coreus marginatus (Heteroptera, Insecta). J Exp Biol 207:2917–2924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gorb S, Scherge M (2000) Biological microtribology: anisotropy in frictional forces of orthopteran attachment pads reflects the ultrastructure of a highly deformable material. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1239–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorb S, Jiao Y, Scherge M (2000) Ultrastructural architecture and mechanical properties of attachment pads in Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera Tettigoniidae). J Comp Physiol A 186:821–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorb S, Gorb E, Kastner V (2001) Scale effects on the attachment pads and friction forces in syrphid flies. J Exp Biol 204:1421–1431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorb S, Beutel R, Gorb E, Jiao Y, Kastner V, Niederegger S, Popov V, Scherge M, Schwarz U, Vötsch W (2002) Structural design and biomechanics of friction-based releasable attachment devices in insects. Integr Comp Biol 42:1127–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Homola A, Israelachvili J, McGuiggan P, Gee M (1990) Fundamental experimental studies in tribology: the transition from “interfacial” friction of undamaged molecularly smooth surfaces to “normal” friction with wear. Wear 136:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishii S (1987) Adhesion of a leaf-feeding ladybird Epilachna vigintioctomaculata (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) on a vertically smooth surface. Appl Entom Zool 22:222–228Google Scholar
  27. Israelachvili J (1992) Intermolecular and surface forces. Academic, LondonGoogle 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. Langer MG, Ruppersberg JP, Gorb S (2004) Adhesion forces measured at the level of a terminal plate of the fly’s seta. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2209–15. DOI 10.1098/rspb.2004.2850Google Scholar
  30. Lees A, Hardie J (1988) The organs of adhesion in the aphid Megoura viciae. J Exp Biol 136:209–228Google Scholar
  31. Martin P, Brochard-Wyart F (1998) Dewetting at soft interfaces. Phys Rev Lett 80:3296–3299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin A, Buguin A, Brochard-Wyart F (2001) Dewetting nucleation centers at soft interfaces. Langmuir 17:6553–6559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin A, Buguin A, Brochard-Wyart F (2002) “Cerenkov” dewetting at soft interfaces. Europhys Lett 57:604–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFarlane JS, Tabor D (1950) Adhesion of solids and the effect of surface films. Proc R Soc Lond A 202:224–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niederegger S, Gorb S, Jiao Y (2002) Contact behaviour of tenent setae in attachment pads of the blowfly Calliphora vicina (Diptera, Calliphoridae). J Comp Physiol A 187:961–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page EB (1963) Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: a significance test for linear ranks. J Am Stat Assoc 58:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Persson B (2002) Adhesion between an elastic body and a randomly rough hard surface. Eur Phys J E 8:385–401. DOI 10.1140/epje/i2002-10025-1Google Scholar
  38. Persson B, Albohr O, Tartaglino U, Volokitin A, Tosatti E (2005) On the nature of surface roughness with application to contact mechanics, sealing, rubber friction and adhesion. J Phys Condens Matter 17:R1–R62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piau JM, Ravilly G, Verdier C (2005) Peeling of polydimethylsiloxane adhesives at low velocities: cohesive failure. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 43:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistic computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts A (1971) The shear of thin liquid films. J Phys D Appl Phys 4:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stork N (1980) Experimental analysis of adhesion of Chrysolina polita (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) on a variety of surfaces. J Exp Biol 88:91–107Google Scholar
  43. Stork N (1983) A comparison of the adhesive setae on the feet of lizards and arthropods. J Nat Hist 17:829–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tadros T (1994) Fundamental principles of emulsion rheology and their applications. Colloids Surf A 91:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vötsch W, Nicholson G, Müller R, Stierhof Y, Gorb S, Schwarz U (2002) Chemical composition of the attachment pad secretion of the locust Locusta migratoria. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 32:1605–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker G (1993) Adhesion to smooth surfaces by insects—a review. Int J Adhesion Adhesives 13:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker G, Yue A, Ratcliffe J (1985) The adhesive organ of the blowfly, Calliphora vomitoria: a functional approach (Diptera: Calliphoridae). J Zool Lond 205:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoology IIUniversity of Würzburg, BiocenterWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations