Insect walking techniques on thin stems

The attachment ability of insects on surfaces are associated not only with the micro- and nanostructure of the adhering part of an attachment device, but also with the global scale kinematics responsible for contact formation and release. In the present study, the locomotory techniques of several representatives of insects from four different orders (Orthoptera, Heteroptera, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera), possessing different types of attachment structures, are described. The study is based on video recordings of insects walking on a flat surface and on cylindrical rods of various thickness, imitating plant stems. Attachment devices of tarsi and pretarsi were visualized using Scanning Electron Microscopy. The results show a different manner in the use of adhesive structures on substrates with various curvatures. Insects bearing attachment pads on proximal tarsomeres usually touch flat and curved substrates using all tarsomeres, whereas insects with their attachment devices on the distal tarsomeres usually walk on flat surfaces using the distal tarsomeres of the overextended tarsus. On substrates, with diameters comparable to or larger than the tarsus length, insects walk above the stem by clasping the stem with the bent tarsi. On thin stems, insects clasp the stem between their tarsi and hang under the stem. Thus, on thin and thick rods, forces applied to attachment organs act in opposite directions. There are two methods of leg positioning for walking on a rough flat substrate. In the first case, the tarsus is straightened and the rough substrate is gripped between the claws and the proximal complex of attachment devices (tarsal euplantulae, fossulae spongiosa, and terminal spurs of tibiae). In the second case the tibia does not touch the substrate; the insect is supported only by distal tarsomeres. The tarsus is in an overextended condition. On rods, with diameters comparable to or larger than the tarsus length, insects walk by clasping the stem with the bent tarsi. This posture is characteristic for the majority of insects independent of the tarsal position they normally use while walking on a plane. If the rod’s diameter is smaller than the tarsus length, walking insects usually clutch it between contralateral tarsi. Using such a posture they are supported by interlocking or by strong friction, generated by attachment devices of the proximal tarsomeres, and do not use attachment devices of the pretarsus. Contact with the substrate is reinforced due to the coordinated contralateral clutch using all supporting legs. It is concluded that the use of different types of attachment structures correlates with locomotory techniques.

[1]  J. D. Gillett,et al.  The Climbing Organ of an Insect, Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera; Reduviidae) , 1932 .

[2]  Eleanor H. Slifer,et al.  Vulnerable Areas on the Surface of the Tarsus and Pretarsus of the Grasshopper (Acrididae, Orthoptera); with Special Reference to the Arolium , 1950 .

[3]  A general textbook of entomology including the anatomy, physiology, development and classification of insects , 1959 .

[4]  A. Russell A contribution to the functional analysis of the foot of the Tokay, Gekko gecko (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) , 1975 .

[5]  R. Postiglione Anatomy of the Honeybee , 1977 .

[6]  C. Kennedy Attachment may be a basis for specialization in oak aphids , 1986 .

[7]  A. F. G. Dixon,et al.  The Mechanism by Which Aphids Adhere to Smooth Surfaces , 1990 .

[8]  W. Barnes,et al.  Adhesion and Detachment of the Toe Pads of Tree Frogs , 1991 .

[9]  Full,et al.  Maximum single leg force production: cockroaches righting on photoelastic gelatin , 1995, The Journal of experimental biology.

[10]  Insect rope‐walkers: kinematics of walking on thin rods in a bug, Graphosoma italicum (Heteroptera, Pentatomidae) , 1996 .

[11]  Locomotory behaviour in a population of the tiger beetle species cicindela hybrida on a small, hot, sandy area (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) , 1996 .

[12]  Holk Cruse,et al.  The stick insect, Obrimus asperrimus (Phasmida, Bacillidae) walking on different surfaces , 1997 .

[13]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  The design of the fly adhesive pad: distal tenent setae are adapted to the delivery of an adhesive secretion , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Hassenstein,et al.  Hiding responses of locusts to approaching objects , 1999, The Journal of experimental biology.

[15]  S. Zill,et al.  Elasticity and movements of the cockroach tarsus in walking , 1999, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[16]  S. Gorb,et al.  Ultrastructural architecture and mechanical properties of attachment pads in Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera Tettigoniidae) , 2000, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[17]  Stanislav Gorb,et al.  Biological microtribology: anisotropy in frictional forces of orthopteran attachment pads reflects the ultrastructure of a highly deformable material , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Y. Jiao,et al.  Adhesion measured on the attachment pads of Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera, insecta). , 2000, The Journal of experimental biology.

[19]  Stanislav Gorb,et al.  Contact behaviour of tenent setae in attachment pads of the blowfly Calliphora vicina (Diptera, Calliphoridae) , 2001, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[20]  Thomas A. McMahon,et al.  Biomechanics of the movable pretarsal adhesive organ in ants and bees , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Ultrastructure of attachment specializations of hexapods (Arthropoda): evolutionary patterns inferred from a revised ordinal phylogeny , 2001 .

[22]  S. Gorb Attachment Devices of Insect Cuticle , 2001, Springer Netherlands.

[23]  S. Gorb,et al.  Evolution of locomotory attachment pads of hexapods , 2001, Naturwissenschaften.

[24]  L. Frantsevich,et al.  Arcus as a tensegrity structure in the arolium of wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). , 2002, Zoology.

[25]  Oliver Betz,et al.  Performance and adaptive value of tarsal morphology in rove beetles of the genus Stenus (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). , 2002, The Journal of experimental biology.

[26]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Attachment ability of the beetle Chrysolina fastuosa on various plant surfaces , 2002 .

[27]  S. Gorb,et al.  Roughness-dependent friction force of the tarsal claw system in the beetle Pachnoda marginata (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). , 2002, The Journal of experimental biology.

[28]  U. Schwarz,et al.  Chemical composition of the attachment pad secretion of the locust Locusta migratoria. , 2002, Insect biochemistry and molecular biology.

[29]  Susanne Schulmeister Morphology and evolution of the tarsal plantulae in Hymenoptera (Insecta), focussing on the basal lineages , 2003 .

[30]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic plates with application to biological systems , 2003 .

[31]  S. Gorb,et al.  Tarsal movements in flies during leg attachment and detachment on a smooth substrate. , 2003, Journal of insect physiology.

[32]  R E Ritzmann,et al.  Effects of aging on behavior and leg kinematics during locomotion in two species of cockroach , 2003, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[33]  Marion D. Kendall,et al.  The Anatomy of the Tarsi of Schistocerca gregaria Forskål , 2004, Zeitschrift für Zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie.

[34]  Guillaume Haiat,et al.  ADHESIVE CONTACT OF VISCOELASTIC SPHERES: A HAND-WAVING INTRODUCTION , 2004 .

[35]  S. Gorb,et al.  WHEN LESS IS MORE: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR TENACITY ENHANCEMENT BY DIVISION OF CONTACT AREA , 2004 .

[36]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Surface profile and friction force generated by insects , 2004 .

[37]  R. Quinn,et al.  Arthropod locomotion systems: from biological materials and systems to robotics. Introduction. , 2004, Arthropod structure & development.

[38]  Stanislav N Gorb,et al.  Ontogenesis of the attachment ability in the bug Coreus marginatus (Heteroptera, Insecta) , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[39]  Zum Verhalten des Krallenbeugersystems bei der Stabheuschrecke Carausius morosus Br. , 1969, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie.

[40]  L. Frantsevich,et al.  Structure and mechanics of the tarsal chain in the hornet, Vespa crabro (Hymenoptera: Vespidae): implications on the attachment mechanism. , 2004, Arthropod structure & development.

[41]  H. Cruse,et al.  Leg coordination during turning on an extremely narrow substrate in a bug, Mesocerus marginatus (Heteroptera, Coreidae). , 2005, Journal of insect physiology.

[42]  Roger D. Quinn,et al.  A Robot that Climbs Walls using Micro-structured Polymer Feet , 2005, CLAWAR.

[43]  Christiane Weirauch,et al.  Pretarsal structures in Reduviidae (Heteroptera, Ins ecta) , 2005 .

[44]  Roger D. Quinn,et al.  A small wall-walking robot with compliant, adhesive feet , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[45]  Huajian Gao,et al.  Mechanics of hierarchical adhesion structures of geckos , 2005 .

[46]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  A Revised Interpretation of the Evolution of Attachment Structures in Hexapoda with Special Emphasis on Mantophasmatodea , 2006 .

[47]  Heinz Schwarz,et al.  Material structure, stiffness, and adhesion: why attachment pads of the grasshopper (Tettigonia viridissima) adhere more strongly than those of the locust (Locusta migratoria) (Insecta: Orthoptera) , 2006, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[48]  OF LOCUSTS TO APPROACHING OBJECTS , .