@phdthesis{Drechsler2008,
  author    = {Drechsler, Patrick Hans},
  title     = {Mechanics of adhesion and friction in stick insects and tree frogs},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-26836},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {Many arthropods and vertebrates can cling to surfaces using adhesive pads on their legs. These pads are either smooth and characterised by a specialised, soft cuticle or they are hairy, i.e. densely covered with flexible adhesive setae. Animals climbing with adhesive organs are able to control attachment and detachment dynamically while running. The detailed mechanisms of how tarsal pads generate adhesive and frictional forces and how forces are controlled during locomotion are still largely unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the attachment mechanism of smooth adhesive pads as present in many insects and tree frogs. To understand the function of these fluid-based adhesive systems, I characterized their performance under standardized conditions. To this end, experiments were conducted by simultaneously measuring adhesion, friction, and contact area in single adhesive pads. The first result of this study showed that friction in stick insect attachment pads is anisotropic: Attachment pads regularly detached when slid away from the body. Further analyses of "immobilized" arolia revealed that this anisotropy is not caused by an increased shear stress in the proximal direction, but by the instability of the tarsus when pushed distally. In the second part of this study, I analysed the role of the pad secretion present in insects and tree frogs. In stick insects, 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 two minutes after a sliding movement showed that adhesive pads could sustain considerable static friction in insects and tree frogs. Repeated sliding movements and multiple consecutive pull-offs of stick insect single legs to deplete adhesive secretion showed that on a smooth surface, friction and adhesion strongly increased with decreasing amount of fluid in insects. In contrast, stick insect 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 with stick insect arolia 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 in stick insects, 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. \% Analogous measurements in toe pads of tree frogs showed that they are also able to generate static friction, even though their pads are wetted by mucus. In contrast to the mechanism proposed for insects, static friction in tree frogs apparently results from the very close contact of toe pads to the substrate and boundary lubrication. In the last section of this study, I investigated adhesive forces and the mode of detachment by performing pull-off measurements at different velocities and preloads. These experiments showed that preload has only an increasing effect on adhesion for faster pull-offs. This can be explained by the viscoelastic material properties of the stick insect arolium, which introduce a strong rate-dependence of detachment. During fast pull-offs, forces can spread over the complete area of contact, leading to forces scaling with area. In contrast, the pad material has sufficient time to withdraw elastically and peel during slow detachments. Under these conditions the adhesive force will concentrate on the circumference of the contact area, therefore scaling with a length, supporting models such as the peeling theory. The scaling of single-pad forces supported these conclusions, but large variation between pads of different stick insects did not allow statistically significant conclusions. In contrast, when detachment forces were quantified for whole insects using a centrifuge, forces scaled with pad contact area and not with length.},
  subject      = {Biomechanik},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Paul2001,
  author    = {Paul, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {The Mouthparts of Ants},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-1179130},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2001},
  abstract  = {Ant mandible movements cover a wide range of forces, velocities and precision. The key to the versatility of mandible functions is the mandible closer muscle. In ants, this muscle is generally composed of distinct muscle fiber types that differ in morphology and contractile properties. Volume proportions of the fiber types are species-specific and correlate with feeding habits. Two biomechanical models explain how the attachment angles are optimized with respect to force and velocity output and how filament-attached fibers help to generate the largest force output from the available head capsule volume. In general, the entire mandible closer muscle is controlled by 10-12 motor neurons, some of which exclusively supply specific muscle fiber groups. Simultaneous recordings of muscle activity and mandible movement reveal that fast movements require rapid contractions of fast muscle fibers. Slow and accurate movements result from the activation of slow muscle fibers. Forceful movements are generated by simultaneous co-activation of all muscle fiber types. For fine control, distinct fiber bundles can be activated independently of each other. Retrograde tracing shows that most dendritic arborizations of the different sets of motor neurons share the same neuropil in the suboesophageal ganglion. In addition, some motor neurons invade specific parts of the neuropil. The labiomaxillary complex of ants is essential for food intake. I investigated the anatomical design of the labiomaxillary complex in various ant species focusing on movement mechanisms. The protraction of the glossa is a non muscular movement. Upon relaxation of the glossa retractor muscles, the glossa protracts elastically. I compared the design of the labiomaxillary complex of ants with that of the honey bee, and suggest an elastic mechanism for glossa protraction in honey bees as well. Ants employ two different techniques for liquid food intake, in which the glossa works either as a passive duct (sucking), or as an up- and downwards moving shovel (licking). For collecting fluids at ad libitum food sources, workers of a given species always use only one of both techniques. The species-specific feeding technique depends on the existence of a well developed crop and on the resulting mode of transporting the fluid food. In order to evaluate the performance of collecting liquids during foraging, I measured fluid intake rates of four ant species adapted to different ecological niches. Fluid intake rate depends on sugar concentration and the associated fluid viscosity, on the species-specific feeding technique, and on the extent of specialization on collecting liquid food. Furthermore, I compared the four ant species in terms of glossa surface characteristics and relative volumes of the muscles that control licking and sucking. Both probably reflect adaptations to the species-specific ecological niche and determine the physiological performance of liquid feeding. Despite species-specific differences, single components of the whole system are closely adjusted to each other according to a general rule.},
  subject      = {Ameisen},
  language  = {en}
}