, Volume 234, Issue 6, pp 1267–1274 | Cite as

Passive water control at the surface of a superhydrophobic lichen

  • Christopher A. E. Hamlett
  • Neil James ShirtcliffeEmail author
  • F. Brian Pyatt
  • Michael I. Newton
  • Glen McHale
  • Kerstin Koch
Original Article


Some lichens have a super-hydrophobic upper surface, which repels water drops, keeping the surface dry but probably preventing water uptake. Spore ejection requires water and is most efficient just after rainfall. This study was carried out to investigate how super-hydrophobic lichens manage water uptake and repellence at their fruiting bodies, or podetia. Drops of water were placed onto separate podetia of Cladonia chlorophaea and observed using optical microscopy and cryo-scanning-electron microscopy (cryo-SEM) techniques to determine the structure of podetia and to visualise their interaction with water droplets. SEM and optical microscopy studies revealed that the surface of the podetia was constructed in a three-level structural hierarchy. By cryo-SEM of water-glycerol droplets placed on the upper part of the podetium, pinning of the droplet to specific, hydrophilic spots (pycnidia/apothecia) was observed. The results suggest a mechanism for water uptake, which is highly sophisticated, using surface wettability to generate a passive response to different types of precipitation in a manner similar to the Namib Desert beetle. This mechanism is likely to be found in other organisms as it offers passive but selective water control.


Apothecium Cryo-SEM Lichens Soredium Super-hydrophobicity Water uptake 



Scanning electron microscope


Cryogen, typically at liquid nitrogen temperature


Frames per second



The authors would like to thank H.J. Ensikat for technical assistance in SEM and performing of the cryo-preparation of the specimen, W. Barthlott for providing parts of the technical equipment for the studies performed at Bonn University (both Nees-Institut für Biodiversität der Pflanzen, Bonn University, Germany) and the EPSRC for funding NJS and CAEH under grants EP/E063489/1 and EP/H00704/1.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

425_2011_1475_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (222 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 222 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 9312 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 11420 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (MPG 12992 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (MPG 3480 kb)


  1. Ahti T (1982) The morphological interpretation of Cladoniiform thalli in lichens. Lichenologist 14:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthlott W, Neinhuis C (1997) Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta 202:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthlott W, Schimmel T, Wiersch S, Koch K, Brede M, Barczewski M, Walheim S, Weis A, Kaltenmaier A, Leder A, Bohn HF (2010) The Salvinia paradox: superhydrophobic surfaces with hydrophilic pins for air-retention under water. Adv Mater 22:2325–2328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassie ABD, Baxter S (1944) Wettability of porous surfaces. T Faraday Soc 40:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Culberson CF (1986) Biogenic relationships of the lichen substances in the framework of systematics. Bryologist 89:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Culberson CF, Culberson WL, Johnson A (1988) Gene flow in lichens. Am J Bot 75:1135–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ensikat HJ, Schulte AJ, Kock K, Barthlott W (2009) Droplets on superhydrophobic surface: visualization of the contact area by cryo-scanning electron microscopy. Langmuir 25:13077–13083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hauck M, Jurgens SR, Brinkmann M, Herminghaus S (2008) Surface hydrophobicity causes SO2 tolerance in lichens. Ann Bot, London 101:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henssen A, Jahns HM (1974) Lichenes. Eine Einführung in die Flechtenkunde. “Physiologie des Flechtenthallus”. Thieme Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  10. Holder CD (2007) Leaf water repellency as an adaptation to tropical montane cloud forest environments. Biotropica 39:767–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koch K, Bohn HF, Barthlott W (2009) Hierarchically sculptured plant surfaces and superhydrophobicity. Langmuir 54:114116–114120Google Scholar
  12. Lakatos M, Rascher U, Büdel B (2006) Functional characteristics of corticolous lichens in the understory of a tropical lowland rain forest. New Phytol 172:679–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson DW (1981) Differential wetting in some lichens and mosses: the role of morphology. Bryologist 84:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McHale G, Newton MI, Shirtcliffe NJ (2010) Immersed superhydrophobic surfaces: gas exchange, slip and drag reduction properties. Soft Matter 6:714–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neinhuis C, Barthlott W (1997) Characterization and distribution of water-repellent, self-cleaning plant surfaces. Ann Bot, London 79:667–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parker AR, Lawrence CR (2001) Water capture by a desert beetle. Nature 414:33–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pyatt FB (1969) Studies of the periodicity of spore discharge and germination in lichens. Bryologist 72:48–53Google Scholar
  18. Pyatt FB (1974) Lichen propagules. In: Ahmadjian V, Hale ME (eds) The lichens. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 117–145Google Scholar
  19. Shirtcliffe NJ, McHale G, Newton MI, Perry CC, Pyatt FB (2006a) Plastron properties of a superhydrophobic surface. Appl Phys Lett 89:104106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shirtcliffe NJ, Pyatt FB, Newton MI, McHale G (2006b) A lichen protected by a super-hydrophobic and breathable structure. J Plant Physiol 163:1193–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shirtcliffe NJ, McHale G, Newton MI (2009) Learning from superhydrophobic plants: the use of hydrophilic areas on superhydrophobic surfaces for droplet control. Langmuir 25:14121–14128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sievers F (1908) Ueber die Wasserversorgung der Flechten. Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum 38. Jahresbericht der Landw. Schule Marienberg mit Realabteilung zu Helmstedt, Bd.Google Scholar
  23. Wenzel RN (1936) Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind Eng Chem 28:988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wösten HAB (2001) Hydrophobins: multipurpose proteins. Annu Rev Microbiol 55:625–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wõsten HAB, de Vries OMH, Wessels JGH (1993) lnterfacial self-assembly of a funga1 hydrophobin into a hydrophobic rodlet layer. Plant Cell 5:1567–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Young T (1805) An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond 95:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. E. Hamlett
    • 1
  • Neil James Shirtcliffe
    • 1
    Email author
  • F. Brian Pyatt
    • 1
  • Michael I. Newton
    • 1
  • Glen McHale
    • 1
  • Kerstin Koch
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Life SciencesRhine Waal UniversityKleveGermany

Personalised recommendations