QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online June 29, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2611-2621 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02323

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Federle, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Federle, W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Commentary

Why are so many adhesive pads hairy?

Walter Federle

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

e-mail: wf222{at}cam.ac.uk

Accepted 10 May 2006

Many arthropods and vertebrates possess tarsal adhesive pads densely covered with setae. The striking morphological convergence of `hairy' pads in lizards, spiders and several insect orders demonstrates the advantage of this design for substrate adhesion. Early functional explanations of hairy adhesive organs focused on the performance on rough substrates, where flexible setae can make more intimate contact. Recent theoretical and experimental work shows that the hairy design can also help to achieve self-cleaning properties, controllable detachment and increased adhesion. Several arguments have been proposed to explain why adhesive forces are maximised. First, the `Force scaling' hypothesis states that when adhesive forces scale linearly with the dimensions of the contact, adhesion is increased by dividing the contact zone into many microscopic subunits. Second, the `Fracture mechanics' argument implies that adhesion is maximised when the size of adhesive contacts is smaller than the critical crack length. Third, the `Work of adhesion' model suggests that adhesion increases due to the bending and stretching of setae and associated energy losses during detachment.

Several morphological traits of hairy adhesive pads can be explained by the need to maximise the work of adhesion, while avoiding the sticking of setae to each other (self-matting). Firstly, if setae are oblique and convex toward the foot tip as typical of most hairy pads, arrays should achieve greater adhesion. Secondly, a branched seta morphology not only confers the advantage that setae can adapt to roughness at different length scales but also prevents self-matting and increases the work of adhesion.

It is predicted from the `Work of adhesion' model that adhesion of pads with unbranched setae cannot be increased by subdividing the contact zone into ever finer subcontacts, because this would increasingly cause self-matting. However, contact splitting can increase adhesion if setae are branched. The greater density of setae in large animals has been interpreted by `Force scaling'. However, the existing data can be explained by the effect of seta branching and by a fundamental difference between `wet' and `dry' adhesive systems. As insects employ adhesive fluids, they can cope with small-scale surface roughness even with relatively blunt seta tips, whereas the dry systems of lizards and spiders require extremely fine endings.

Key words: adhesive setae, biomechanics, animal adhesion, fibrillar adhesion, contact mechanics, branching

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. R. Bullock and W. Federle Division of labour and sex differences between fibrillar, tarsal adhesive pads in beetles: effective elastic modulus and attachment performance J. Exp. Biol., June 15, 2009; 212(12): 1876 - 1888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Bhushan Biomimetics: lessons from nature-an overview Phil Trans R Soc A, April 28, 2009; 367(1893): 1445 - 1486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Scholz, W. J. P. Barnes, J. M. Smith, and W. Baumgartner Ultrastructure and physical properties of an adhesive surface, the toe pad epithelium of the tree frog, Litoria caerulea White J. Exp. Biol., January 15, 2009; 212(2): 155 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. R. Bullock, P. Drechsler, and W. Federle Comparison of smooth and hairy attachment pads in insects: friction, adhesion and mechanisms for direction-dependence J. Exp. Biol., October 15, 2008; 211(20): 3333 - 3343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J Clemente and W. Federle Pushing versus pulling: division of labour between tarsal attachment pads in cockroaches Proc R Soc B, June 7, 2008; 275(1640): 1329 - 1336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Autumn and N. Gravish Gecko adhesion: evolutionary nanotechnology Phil Trans R Soc A, May 13, 2008; 366(1870): 1575 - 1590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Y. Phang, N. Aldred, A. S Clare, and G. J. Vancso Towards a nanomechanical basis for temporary adhesion in barnacle cyprids (Semibalanus balanoides) J R Soc Interface, April 6, 2008; 5(21): 397 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Gravish, M. Wilkinson, and K. Autumn Frictional and elastic energy in gecko adhesive detachment J R Soc Interface, March 6, 2008; 5(20): 339 - 348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Peattie and R. J. Full Phylogenetic analysis of the scaling of wet and dry biological fibrillar adhesives PNAS, November 20, 2007; 104(47): 18595 - 18600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]