2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2015.02.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of surface roughness on attachment ability of locust Locusta migratoria manilensis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…claws [28][29][30][31][32]. Smooth adhesive pads are generally soft and deformable and can be further subcategorized (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…claws [28][29][30][31][32]. Smooth adhesive pads are generally soft and deformable and can be further subcategorized (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Locusts can adapt to substrates of various roughness, thanks to a combined grasping mechanism consisting of rigid claws that generate mechanical interlocking on rough substrates, and adhesive pads for vacuum adhesion on smooth substrates (Goodwyn et al, 2006 ; Wang et al, 2009 , 2015 ; Mo et al, 2019 ). This particular characteristic can be considered as a sort of morphological intelligence, which makes locusts capable of dealing with a wide variety of substrates, even much different from each other, avoiding slipping phenomena in both jumping and landing phase (Woodward and Sitti, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The properties of the ground are another set of environmental factors that can potentially affect the locust jump, especially during the take-off stage. For example, surface roughness with an Ra value of 1-2 µm can reduce the ability of locust legs to attach to the substrate, resulting in considerable slippage of the hind legs on the ground and thus take-off failure [21,22]. Similar effects of surface roughness have also been documented in females of the Mediterranean field cricket (Gryllus bimaculatus) crawling on smooth surfaces (R q = 7.3 µm), which resulted in significantly lower phonotactic responses compared with rougher surfaces (R q = 16 or 180 µm) [23].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%