Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 600–606 | Cite as

Adhesion and Suction Functions of the Tip Region of a Nectar-drinking Butterfly Proboscis

  • Seung Chul Lee
  • Jun Ho Kim
  • Sang Joon Lee


In this study, we investigated the dynamic functions of the tip region of the butterfly proboscis through which liquid is sucked during liquid feeding. The microstructures and flow patterns in the tip region of the proboscis were in vivo analyzed. The tip region can be divided into two functional sections: namely adhesion and suction sections. The liquid adheres to the adhesion section during liquid suction. Although the tip region has numerous slits connected to food canal of the proboscis, liquid is mainly sucked through the suction section, which section is submerged in the fluid pulled by the adhesion section and then successfully imbibes liquid. To check the dynamic functions of the tip region, we fabricated a suction tip model having adhesion and suction parts. The in vitro model experiments show that the hydrophilicity of the adhesion part and the existence of the suction inlet improve the liquid uptake driven by a suction pump. This study may provide insights for the biomimetic design of nectar-feeding butterflies.


butterfly proboscis nectar-feeding strategy suction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Laser D J, Santiago J G. A review of micropumps. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2004, 14, R35–R64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Yang H, Wu J, Yan S. Effects of erectable glossal hairs on a honeybee’s nectar-drinking strategy. Applied Physics Letters, 2014, 104, 263701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Wu J, Yang H, Yan S. Energy saving strategies of honeybees in dipping nectar. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5, 15002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Li C, Wu J, Yang Y, Zhu R, Yan S. Drag reduction in the mouthpart of a honeybee facilitated by galea ridges for nectar-dipping strategy. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2015, 12, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Li C, Wu J, Yang Y, Zhu R, Yan S. Drag reduction effects facilitated by microridges inside the mouthparts of honeybee workers and drones. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2016, 389, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Zhao Y, Wu J, Yang H, Yan S. The morphology and reciprocation movement of Honeybee’s hairy tongue for nectar uptake. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2016, 13, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Jaiswal S, Muthuswamy S. Instability analysis of mosquito fascicle under compressive load with vibrations and microneedle design. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2015, 12, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kim W, Gilet T, Bush J W M. Optimal concentrations in nectar feeding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108, 16618–16621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kim W, Bush J W M. Natural drinking strategies. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2012, 705, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Krenn H W. Feeding mechanisms of adult Lepidoptera: Structure, function, and evolution of the mouthparts. Annual Review of Entomology, 2010, 55, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Eastham L E S, Eassa Y E E. The feeding mechanism of the butterfl? Pieris Brassicae L. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 1955, 239, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Eberhard S H, Krenn H W. Anatomy of the oral valve in nymphalid butterflies and a functional model for fluid uptake in Lepidoptera. Zoologischer Anzeiger-A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 2005, 243, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kingsolver J G, Daniel T L. Mechanics of food handling by fluid-feeding insects. In: Chapman R F, de Boer G, eds., Regulatory Mechanisms in Insect Feeding, Springer, New York, USA, 1995, 32–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kingsolver J G, Daniel T L. On the mechanics and energetics of nectar feeding in butterflies. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1979, 76, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Daniel T L, Kingsolver J G, Meyhofer E. Mechanical determinants of nectar-feeding energetics in butterflies: Muscle mechanics, feeding geometry, and functional equivalence. Oecologia, 1989, 79, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Pivnick K A, McNeil J N. Effects of nectar concentration on butterfly feeding: Measured feeding rates for Thymelicus lineola (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and a general feeding model for adult Lepidoptera. Oecologia, 1985, 66, 226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Borrell B J, Krenn H W. Nectar feeding in long-proboscis insects. In: Herrel A, Speck T, Rowe N P, eds., Ecology and Biomechanics: A Mechanical Approach to the Ecology of Animals and Plants, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2006, 185–212.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Boggs C L. Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: Effects of sex, size, age and nectar concentration. Functional Ecology, 1988, 2, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    May P G. Nectar uptake rates and optimal nectar concentrations of two butterfly species. Oecologia, 1985, 66, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Krenn H W, Plant J D, Szucsich N U. Mouthparts of flower-visiting insects. Arthropod Structure & Development, 2005, 34, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Krenn H W. Functional morphology and movements of the proboscis of Lepidoptera (Insecta). Zoomorphology, 1990, 110, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Krenn H W. Proboscis sensilla in Vanessa cardui (Nymphalidae, Lepidoptera): Functional morphology and significance in flower-probing. Zoomorphology, 1998, 118, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Krenn H W, Kristensen N P. Early evolution of the proboscis of Lepidoptera (Insecta): External morphology of the galea in basal glossatan moths lineages, with remarks on the origin of the pilifers. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 2000, 239, 179–196.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Krenn H W, Zulka K P, Gatschnegg T. Proboscis morphology and food preferences in nymphalid butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Zoology, 2001, 254, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Lee S J, Lee S C, Kim B H. Liquid-intake flow around the tip of butterfly proboscis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2014, 348, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Tsai C C, Monaenkova D, Beard C E, Adler P H, Kornev K G. Paradox of the drinking-straw model of the butterfly proboscis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2014, 217, 2130–2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Adrian R J. Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid mechanics. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1991, 23, 261–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Lehnert M S, Monaenkova D, Andrukh T, Beard C E, Adler P H, Kornev K G. Hydrophobic-hydrophilic dichotomy of the butterfly proboscis. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2013, 10, 20130336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung Chul Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jun Ho Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sang Joon Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohang 37673 GyeongbukRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Center for Biofluid and Biomimic ResearchPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohang 37673 GyeongbukRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations