Insect attachment on waxy plant surfaces: the effect of pad contamination by different waxes

• Elena V. Gorb and
• Stanislav N. Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2024, 15, 385–395, doi:10.3762/bjnano.15.35

• (3D) epicuticular wax projections, insects usually fail to attach to [4][5][6]. The reducing effect of such plant surfaces on insect adhesion has been shown for many plant and insect species using various experimental approaches, from direct behavioral observations and simple inversion [7] or incline

• (number per unit area) influence insect attachment [11][12]. As an explanation for reduced insect adhesion on waxy plant surfaces, several contributing mechanisms have been previously suggested, such as (1) specific micro/nanoroughness created by wax projections (roughness hypothesis), (2) contamination

Polarity in cuticular ridge development and insect attachment on leaf surfaces of Schismatoglottis calyptrata (Araceae)

• Venkata A. Surapaneni,
• Tobias Aust,
• Thomas Speck and
• Marc Thielen

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2021, 12, 1326–1338, doi:10.3762/bjnano.12.98

• surfaces. The changes in the micro- and macroscale morphology of the leaves should improve our understanding of the way that plants defend themselves against insect herbivores. Keywords: cuticular ridges; insect adhesion; leaf surfaces; ontogeny; polarity; surface replication; Introduction The plant

A comparison of tarsal morphology and traction force in the two burying beetles Nicrophorus nepalensis and Nicrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera, Silphidae)

• Liesa Schnee,
• Benjamin Sampalla,
• Josef K. Müller and
• Oliver Betz

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2019, 10, 47–61, doi:10.3762/bjnano.10.5

• of insect adhesion have been performed with ‘good plant climbers’ [4][5][6][7]. Although burying beetles can be observed climbing plants to reach a better position from which to start flying to their carrion resources [1], they do not primarily use their tarsi in the context of plant climbing

• respective surfaces [15][16][17]. Another property that influences insect adhesion is surface polarity, which can be affected by surface roughness, apparently reinforcing hydrophobic or hydrophilic surface characteristics. The testing of both of these surface properties in combination in our experiments has

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

• Matt W. England,
• Tomoya Sato,
• Makoto Yagihashi,
• Atsushi Hozumi,
• Stanislav N. Gorb and
• Elena V. Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 1471–1479, doi:10.3762/bjnano.7.139

From sticky to slippery: Biological and biologically-inspired adhesion and friction

• Stanislav N. Gorb and
• Kerstin Koch

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 1450–1451, doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.157

• theoretical studies which range from insect adhesion, bacterial adhesion and skin friction to artificial biomimetic systems, e.g., snake-skin inspired polymer patterns or gecko tape. The Thematic Series does not attempt to give a comprehensive overview of the emerging field of biological contact mechanics

Physical principles of fluid-mediated insect attachment - Shouldn’t insects slip?

• Jan-Henning Dirks

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 1160–1166, doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.127

• review summarizes the key physical and tribological principles that determine the adhesion and friction in such a model. Interestingly, such a simple wet-adhesion model falls short in explaining several features of insect adhesion. For example, it cannot predict the observed high static friction forces

• these assumptions are not valid in many cases of insect adhesion. Future tribological models for insect adhesion thus need to incorporate deformable adhesive pads, non-Newtonian properties of the adhesive fluid and/or partially “dry” or solid-like contact between the pad and the substrate. Keywords

• has fascinated scientists and the underlying mechanisms have been debated since the early days of light microscopy. From “gluten-filled sponges”, the interlocking of fine hairs, suction cups and adhesive secretions, many hypotheses about insect adhesion have been proposed over the last two centuries

Insect attachment on crystalline bioinspired wax surfaces formed by alkanes of varying chain lengths

• Elena Gorb,
• Sandro Böhm,
• Nadine Jacky,
• Louis-Philippe Maier,
• Kirstin Dening,
• Sasha Pechook,
• Boaz Pokroy and
• Stanislav Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 1031–1041, doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.116

• [10]). The impact of the surface roughness on insect adhesion has been shown in a number of experimental studies demonstrating a greatly reduced adhesion on the surface roughness of specific microscopic dimensions in comparison to smooth substrate [2][58][59][60]. Also, an adsorption of the secretion

The effect of surface anisotropy in the slippery zone of Nepenthes alata pitchers on beetle attachment

• Elena V. Gorb and
• Stanislav N. Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2011, 2, 302–310, doi:10.3762/bjnano.2.35

• , and their effect on insect attachment ability in several Nepenthes species (e.g., [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]). Using different experimental approaches, the authors explained the prevention of insect adhesion via contamination of adhesive pads by wax crystals and/or reduction of the real