Measurement methods and water droplet sizes used to calculate leaf contact angles.
Leaf wettability, indicating the affinity for water on leaf surfaces, is a common phenomenon for plants in a wide variety of habitats. The contact angle (θ) of water on leaves measured at the gas, solid and liquid interface is an index of surface wettability. Leaves are termed as “super-hydrophilic” if θ < 40°, “highly wettable” if θ < 90°, and “wettable” if θ < 110°. If θ > 110°, the leaves are classified as being non-wettable, while θ > 130° for highly non-wettable and θ > 150° for super-hydrophobic. Both internal and external factors can influence leaf wettability. The chemical composition and structure of leaf surfaces are internal causes, but the external environment can also influence wettability by affecting the structure and composition of the surface. The main internal factors that affecting leaf wettability include the content and microstructure of the epidermal wax, the number, size and pattern of trichomes, stomatal density, the shape of epidermal cells, and leaf water status. The leaf contact angles increased with the increasing of leaf wax content. However, studies have shown that the contact angles were more dependent on the complexity of wax structure than on the absolute amount. For trichomes, there are three types of interaction between trichomes and water droplets, including (1) low trichomes density: no apparent influence of trichomes on the location of surface moisture, droplet formation and retention ; (2) medium trichomes density: trichomes appear to circle surface moisture into patches; (3) high trichomes density: trichomes appear to hold water droplets above the trichomes. In some cases, a higher stomatal density was accompanied with a higher contact angles. While, it was also observed that there was no significant correlation between contact angle and stomatal density for some species. For the effects of epidermal cells on leaf wettability, it was generally considered that the combination of a dense layer of surface wax and the convex epidermal cells was what created a hydrophobic leaf surface. However, the influence of leaf water content on contact angle of water droplets on different leaf surfaces was complex, e.g., contact angles increased with decreasing of leaf water content, contact angle remained to be constant with different leaf water content.
- Leaf surface
- wax crystal
- ecological significances
Leaves are covered by a layer of cuticular wax, serving to decrease surface wetting and moisture loss. The epicuticular wax layer may be classified into two main types: a thin wax film that appears to be ubiquitous and a highly crystalline epicuticular wax consisting of wax crystals that is not present on all species [1, 2]. These outer layers control the wetting of leaves, which have been studied by many researchers in recent years because of the “lotus effect” (i.e., the self-cleaning properties that are a result of very high water repellence, as exhibited by the leaves of the lotus flower) [3–7].
Wetting is the ability of a liquid to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together . The degree of wetting is determined by a force balance between adhesive and cohesive forces, which is often characterized by contact angle of water measured at the gas, solid, and liquid interface [9–13]. Contact angle gives an inverse measurement of adhesion between a liquid and a solid. A lower contact angle indicates the liquid will spread over a larger area of the surface. A greater contact angle indicates the liquid will minimize contact with the surface and form a more spherical water droplet.
In a natural environment, leaf surfaces of a large variety of plants are frequently wetted by rainfall, dewfall, ground fog, and cloud mist, and both adaxial and abaxial surfaces are frequently affected. Depending on the tissue hygroscopicity, it may consist of individual drops, or of water films of thickness between a few nanometers and a few micrometers . Several studies have shown that the contact angles between leaf surfaces and water droplets range from 0° to 180°, depending on plant species [3, 4, 9, 10, 12–25]. The differences in physical and chemical properties of leaf surfaces possibly lead to the different contact angles of leaves. These surface properties include the number and pattern of trichomes [12–14], the three-dimensional microstructures of epicuticular cells [3, 4, 15], the microstructures and compositions of wax crystals/films [3, 4, 16–18], and the number and distribution of stomata [12, 13, 19].
Wettability is a comprehensive response at the solid, gas, and liquid phase interface of leaves and it significantly affects physiological and ecological functions of plants. For example, leaf wettability influences pollutant deposition such as acid rain [20, 26, 27], ozone [20, 21], and particulate matter [4, 18, 28, 29], for foliar nutrient leaching , in the control of plant disease [23, 30–36], for plant photosynthesis and yield [24, 37, 38], and in the interception of precipitation [25, 39–42]. Recent advances in the area of the wetting of leaf surfaces and its ecological significances are reviewed at present. In Section 2, we discuss the contact angles on ideal and rough surfaces (the Young equation, Wenzel model, Cassie–Baxter model, and Cassie–Baxter to Wenzel transition), the classification of leaf surface wetting, and the methodologies used to measure leaf contact angles. In Section 3, we discuss how the wax content and structure; the number, shape, and pattern of trichomes; the stomatal density; the shape of epidermal cells; and the leaf water status, affect leaf wettability. In Section 4, we discuss the influence of leaf wettability on rainfall interception, photosynthesis rate, pathogen infection, and environmental quality.
2. Criteria and measurement of leaf wettability
2.1. Surface wetting and contact angle
2.1.1. The Young equation
A droplet on a solid surface wets the surface to a certain degree. To what extent a surface gets wet can be described by the contact angle. Contact angle is defined as the angle formed by a liquid at the three-phase boundary where the liquid, gas, and solid intersect (Figure 1). The contact angle directly provides information on three interfacial free energies involved: solid–gas/vapor (
2.1.2. Wenzel model
Young’s equation applies strictly to an ideal surface. However, most leaf surfaces in nature are not perfect smooth, rigidity, or chemical homogeneity because of leaf surface properties [3, 4, 12–18, 45, 46]. Wenzel  modified Young’s equation to account for contact angles formed on rough surfaces (
The roughness factor is defined as the actual contact area to apparent contact area, and acts as an amplification of the effect of the surface chemistry, i.e., smaller changes in
2.1.3. Cassie–Baxter model
Wenzel’s equation accounts for the surface roughness. It describes the homogeneous wetting regime in which water fills the roughness grooves on the surface, as seen in Figure 2a. However, it does not describe contact angle hysteresis that occurs on heterogeneous surfaces . Contact angle hysteresis is defined as the difference between the advancing contact angle (i.e., the contact angle at the advancing edge of a liquid drop,
Eq. (4) implies that with a small
In particular, Wenzel model applies in such case that the leaf surfaces with intermediate hydrophobic and intermediate hydrophilic characteristics, which remain dry beyond the water droplets. If the texture of surfaces is wettable, a film develops in the texture and the droplet sits upon a mixture of solid and liquid, consisting a composite surface (Figure 4) . In this case, the contact angle between the liquid is 0°, and the equation can be written as
2.1.4. Cassie–Baxter to Wenzel transition
Some researchers studied the stability of the composite interface of superhydrophobic surfaces and the transition from composite to homogeneous interface under pressure [52, 53] and vertical vibration . The intermediate state between the Wenzel and the Cassie modes is shown in Figure 5. The penetration condition is given by
2.2. Classification of leaf surface wetting
The larger the contact angle is, the more repellent a leaf surface shows (Figure 6). According to Aryal et al.  and Wang et al. , the judgment criteria for leaf wettability were as follows: if
2.3. Measurement of leaf contact angle
The measuring methods of leaf contact angle include the static sessile drop method, the dynamic sessile drop method, the dynamic Wilhelmy method, and the Washburn equation capillary rise method [13–17, 28–32, 37–38, 56–78]. The sessile drop method is the most common method, which is measured by a contact angle goniometer using an optical subsystem to capture the profile of a pure liquid on a solid substrate. Older systems used a microscope optical system with a back light. Current-generation systems employ high-resolution cameras and software to capture and analyze the contact angle . Water droplet sizes vary between studies from 0.2 to 15 µl (Table 1). Letellier et al.  considered that the contact angle is dependent on not only the nature and structure of the substrate but also the size of the drops. In their study, they found that if interface is a surface and with a thermodynamic dimension (
|Digital camera and image-processing software||7.5||5||52–122||Belgium||17|
|Microscope and image-processing software||Not reported||1||64.7–138.0||Polish||56|
|Digital camera and geometric analysis||0.2||1||50–85||Japan||57|
|Binocular microscope with protractor graticule||1||1||72–115||UK||58|
|Stereomicroscopic photo and image-processing software||5||18||109–136||United States||30|
|Stereomicroscopic photo and image analysis||5||38||<15–>170||United States||59|
|Digital camera and image-processing software||10||36||40.33–144.25||Guatemala and United States||9|
|Digital camera and image-processing software||10||36||40.3–144.3||Guatemala and United States||60|
|Digital camera and image-processing software||10||5||44.68–77.92||Brazil||61|
|Digital camera and image-processing software||10||33||<20–>150||Guatemala and United States||62|
|Automated tension meter||2||1||85–120||Greece||16|
|Digital camera and image-processing software||7.5||1||51.2–97.7||Belgium||37|
|Microprojector and image analysis||2 mm diameter||1||120–150||Australia||64|
|Drop shape analyzer or digital camera and image-processing software||5||227||50–145||Nepal||55|
|Not reported||1.5 mm diameter||52||39.9–136.1||New Zealand||65|
|Geometric analysis with inspection microscope||5||3||85–105||United States||21|
|Geometric analysis with inspection microscope||5||37||0–180||Argentina||12|
|Bench microscope with a protractor graticule||Not reported||1||101–108||Italy||66|
|Geometric analysis with inspection microscope||2||1||75–97.2||India||67|
|Not reported||5||1||United States||38|
|Geometric analysis with inspection microscope||5||50||23.8–180||United States||68|
|Digital camera and image analysis||0.2||1||60–120||Japan||69|
|Digital camera and image analysis||1–42 mm diameter||1||15–100||Sweden||70|
|Goniometer||2–3 mm diameter||200||117–164||Germany||3|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||500 µm diameter||50||<50–141||Germany||71|
|Geometric analysis with inspection microscope||5||5||71–130||United States||72|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||2 or 6||3||67.1–135.9||China||18|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||5||5||43–146||China||73|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||6||21||42.3–134.7||China||13|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||6||21||41.5–136.0||China||28|
|Goniometer and image-processing software||6||18||47.6–142.7||China||29|
|Not reported||10||33||Not reported||Germany||15|
|Microprojector and image analysis||3 mm diameter||7||29–152||UK||76|
3. Main factors influencing leaf wettability
3.1. Leaf wax
Leaves of higher plants are covered by a cuticle consisting of a cutin matrix with waxes embedded in and deposited on the surface of the matrix [80, 81]. The cutin fraction is a polyester-type biopolymer composed of hydroxyl- and hydroxyepoxy fatty acids, whereas the cuticular waxes are a complex mixture of long-chain aliphatic and cyclic compounds . The major compound classes of plant cuticular waxes are
Studies have shown that wax content had distinct effects on leaf wettability [13, 19, 45, 88]. A study conducted by Koch et al.  showed that the contact angle increased with the increasing of leaf wax content for the three investigated species (
Since leaf contact angle was more dependent on the wax structure, recent papers have highlighted the importance of wax structure on leaf wettability [4, 18, 24, 25, 39, 45, 46, 65, 73‒75]. Neinhuis and Barthlott  found that the leaves of
Barthlott et al.  observed surface micromorphology of at least 13,000 species, representing all major groups of seed plants. In total, 23 wax types are classified, for example, granule, platelet, plate, rodlet, thread, and tubule. For water repellency, a classical example is the lotus leaf, which has a very superhydrophobic surface (contact angle over 150°). The SEM images (Figure 7a, b) showed that the surface of the lotus leaf comprises randomly distributed, almost hemispherically topped papillae with sizes 5–10 µm (height to basal radius aspect ratio ~1) decorated with branchlike protrusions with sizes of about 150 nm [46, 90, 91]. Many elliptic protrusions with an average diameter of about 10 µm were uniformly distributed in the nestlike caves, forming a microstructure on taro leaf (
Trichomes, also known as hairs, are fine outgrowths or appendages on plants, which are of diverse structure (e.g., puberulent, hispid, strigose, villous, pilose, strigillose, tomentose, pubescent, downy, and articulate) and function. Plant hairs may be unicellular or multicellular, branched or unbranched. Hairs on plants are extremely variable in their presence across species and even within a species, such as their location on plant organs, size, density. Trichomes can reflect the sunlight, absorb water and nutrients, and reduce transpiration. Besides, trichomes affect the leaf wettability, which has been analyzed in some investigations [12–14, 19, 38, 68].
Some papers have demonstrated that different trichome density and structure may result in different leaf wettability [3, 59, 67, 68, 92]. In a study conducted in the center Rocky Mountain (USA), a positive correlation was observed between contact angle and trichome density for 50 subalpine/montane species . Brewer et al.  and Pandey and Nagar  considered that the leaves with trichomes were more water repellent, especially where trichome density was greater than 25/mm2, at which they may develop trichome canopy. The adaxial surface of leaves of
Three types of interaction between trichomes and water droplets were evident [38, 68]. On one group of leaf surfaces (Figure 8a), trichomes appeared to have no influence on the location of surface moisture, droplet formation, or retention. In this group, the trichome density was relatively low, and usually a film of water formed on the leaf surface. The leaves of
3.3. Stomatal density
Stomatal density and aperture (length of stomata) vary under a number of environmental factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration, light intensity, air temperature, photoperiod (daytime duration), and pollutants [85, 95–98]. Previous studies have shown that the contact angle on abaxial surface was higher than that on adaxial surface [9, 12, 13, 65, 68], which was consistent with the stomatal distribution on leaf surfaces. The results of Brewer and Nuñez  showed that the surface with the greatest concentration of stomata was the least wettable. In a study conducted in Xi’an by Wang et al. , they found that a higher stomatal density was accompanied with a higher contact angle. However, the relationship between leaf contact angle and stomatal density was not shown a simple linear relationship. The studies of Juniper and Jeffree , Brewer and Smith , and Kumar et al.  indicated that no significant correlation was observed between contact angle and stomatal density.
3.4. Epidermal cells
A gradient in the cell shape directly related to the contact angle of leaf surfaces was observed in some studies conducted by Wagner et al.  (Figure 10), Haines et al. , Neinhuis and Barthlott , Wang et al. , and Wang et al. . Wang et al.  found that the leaves with convex epidermal cells with wax crystals, for example,
3.5. Leaf water status
Leaf water status of plants is also a key factor in the wetting of leaf surfaces. Quantitative studies on the wetting by water of the exterior surfaces of leaves of
4. Ecological significance of leaf wettability
4.1. Interception of precipitation
Rainfall interception of forest areas is an important hydrological process that alters the quantity, timing, and distribution of water input and output on a catchment. On leaf level, leaf surface characteristics contribute to variability in interception between different plant species, resulting in different geometrical shapes of water on leaves (i.e., water film, patches, drops, and spherical droplets) . Wang et al.  investigated leaf water drop adhesion of 60 plant species from Shaanxi, northwest China. The adhesion of water droplets to leaves covered a wide range of area, from 4.09 to 88.87 g/m2 on adaxial surfaces and 0.72 to 93.35 g/m2 on abaxial surfaces. The combined values for adaxial and abaxial surfaces in a single species ranged from 5.67 to 159.59 g/m2. Wilson et al.  found that the leaf maximum water storage capacity of potato was 150 g/m2. They also reported that leaf water accumulation in the upper position of the canopy always exceeded that in the lower canopy, and clumping caused less water accumulation in the upper canopy and greater accumulation in the lower half compared to the random case. Tanakamaru et al.  compared leaf water retention by young and old leaves of
4.2. Photosynthetic rate
The effect of leaf surface wettability on plant photosynthesis stems from the fact that diffusion of CO2 is 10,000 times slower in water than in air [9, 12, 24, 38, 72, 101]. Surface wetness induces different changes in leaf photosynthesis among species because leaf surface wettability varied greatly (i.e., from being covered almost completely by water to being water repellent) [24, 68]. For alpine and subalpine plants, natural dew depressed assimilation by 77% in species having wettable leaves, whereas assimilation was stimulated by 14% in species having nonwettable leaves . For bean and pea, a 22% stimulated assimilation rate was obtained for nonwettable pea leaves in the 72-h mist-treated artificial surface, but the wettable bean leaves were on the contrary, which decreased 28%. They postulated that the photosynthetic responses to wetness are due to the change in stomatal regulation . The results of Brewer and Smith  indicated that surface wetting, either from natural events or spraying irrigation might lead to significant reduction in CO2 exchange and growth potential in agricultural species. Leaf surface wetness caused the greatest decline in photosynthesis for the surfaces with the lowest contact angle, which was due to the fact that water physically blocked stomatal pores.
4.3. Pathogen infection
Different plant species vary widely in pathogen infection, perhaps due to leaf micromorphology, surface chemistry, and degree of leaf wetness [19, 81, 102–104]. Water droplets on the leaf surface can be an important source of water for pathogen infection. Excess leaf wetness promotes pathogen infection in many native and agricultural species . Kuo and Hoch  found that pycnidiospores of
4.4. Environmental quality
It is universally accepted that trees and other vegetation are effective at trapping and absorbing many pollutants, such as particulate matters, CO, NO2, and SO2 [17–18, 56, 105–108], and they can act as biological absorbers or filters of pollutants [18, 105–107]. Leaf as the multifunctional interface between plants and environment is also continuously exposed to high levels of varieties of air pollutants. Air pollutants may cause plants both acute and chronic damages on anatomical and morphological characteristics [17–18, 56, 109, 110], leading variations in leaf wettability. Therefore, leaf wettability is potentially a good indicator to point out differences in urban habitat quality [18, 56]. Adams and Hutchinson  investigated the ability of four species (cabbage:
Leaf surfaces represent the key interfaces between plants and their environment, which influence the biodiversity and biomass, nutrient and water balance, biogeochemical cycle, and productivity of ecosystems. Leaf surface wettability, indicating the affinity for water on the leaf surface, is a common phenomenon for plants in a wide variety of habitats, which directly affect leaf photosynthesis, canopy interception, pathogen infection, and environmental quality. Many studies concentrated on the differences in leaf surface wettability and its relation with leaf microstructure. Leaf surface wettability has been considered to be of great theoretical and academic importance, and studies focused on the ecological significances of leaf wettability should be encouraged in the future.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41230852).
Taylor P. The wetting of leaf surfaces. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 2011, 16(4): 326–334.
Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Cutler D, Ditsch F, Meusel I, Theisen I, Wilhelmi H. Classification and terminology of plant epicuticular waxes. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 1998, 126(3): 237–260.
Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Characterization and distribution of water-repellent, self-cleaning plant surfaces. Annals of Botany, 1997, 79: 667–677.
Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Seasonal changes of leaf surface contamination in beech, oak, and ginkgo in relation to leaf micromorphology and wettability. New Phytologist, 1998, 138: 91–98.
Fürstner R, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Walzel P. Wetting and self-cleaning properties of artificial superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2005, 21: 956–961.
Hansen W R, Autumn K. Evidence for self-cleaning in gecko setae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(2): 385–389.
Lotus effect. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus effect. (accessed 5 May 2015).
Wetting. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting (accessed 12 December 2014).
Holder C D. Leaf water repellency of species in Guatemala and Colorado (USA) and its significance to forest hydrology studies. Journal of Hydrology, 2007, 336: 147–154.
Holder C D. The relationship between leaf hydrophobicity, water droplet retention, and leaf angle of common species in a semi-arid region of the western United States. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2012, 152: 11–16.
Sutton M A, Spindler G, van Putten E. A climatology of leaf surface wetness. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2002, 71: 107–117.
Brewer C A, Nuñez C I. Patterns of leaf wettability along an extreme moisture gradient in western Patagonia, Argentina. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 2007, 227, 168(5): 555–562.
Wang H X, Shi H, Li Y Y. Leaf surface wettability of major plant species for urban greening in Xi’an and related affecting factors. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2010, 29(4): 630–636. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Fernández V, Sancho-Knapik D, Guzmán P, Peguero-Pina J J, Gil L, Karabourniotis G, Khayet M, Fasseas C, Heredia-Guerrero J A, Heredia A, Gil-Pelegrín E. Wettability, polarity and water absorption of Quercusilexleaves: effect of leaf side and age. Plant Physiology, 2014, 166(1): 168-180.
Wagner P, Fürstner R, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C. Quantitative assessment to the structural basis of water repellency in natural and technical surfaces. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2003, 54(385): 1295–1303.
Kolyva F, Stratakis E, Rhizopoulou S, Chimona C, Fotakis C. Leaf surface characteristics and wetting in CeratoniasiliquaL. Flora, 2012, 207: 551–556.
Kardel F, Wuyts K, Babanezhad M, Wuytack T, Adriaenssens S, Samson R. Tree leaf wettability as passive bio-indicator of urban habitat quality. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2012, 75: 277–285.
Wang H X, Shi H, Li Y Y, Yu Y, Zhang J. Seasonal variations in leaf capturing of particulate matter, surface wettability and micromorphology in urban tree species. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 2013, 7(4): 579–588.
Kumar N, Pandey S, Bhattacharya A, Ahuja P S. Do leaf surface characteristics affect Agrobacteriuminfection in tea [ Camellia sinensis(L.) O Kuntze]? Journal of Biosciences, 2004, 29(3): 309–317.
Percy K E, Jensen K F, McQuattie C J. Effects of ozone and acidic fog on red spruce needle epicuticular wax production, chemical composition, cuticular membrane ultrastructure and needle wettability. New Phytologist, 1992, 122: 71–80.
Schreuder M D J, van Hove L W A, Brewer C A. Ozone exposure affects leaf wettability and tree water balance. New Phytologist, 2001, 152: 443–454.
Adriaenssens S, Staelens J, Wuyts K, de Schrijver A, Van Wittenberghe S, Wuytack T, Kardel F, Verheyen K, Samson R, Boeckx P. Foliar nitrogen uptake from wet deposition and the relation with leaf wettability and water storage capacity. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2011, 219(1–4): 43–57.
Burch A Y, Zeisler V, Yokota K, Schreiber L, Lindow S E. The hygroscopic biosurfactant syringafactin produced by Pseudomonas syringaeenhances fitness on leaf surfaces during fluctuating humidity. Environmental Microbiology, 2014, 16(7): 2086–2098.
Hanba Y T, Moriya A, Kimura K. Effect of leaf surface wetness and wettability on photosynthesis in bean and pea. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2004, 27, 413–421.
Wang H X, Shi H, Li Y Y, Wang Y H. The effects of leaf roughness, surface free energy and work of adhesion on leaf water drop adhesion. PLoS One, 2014, 9(9): e107062. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107062.
Adams C M, Hutchinson T C. Comparative abilities of leaf surfaces to neutralize acidic raindrops II. The influence of leaf wettability, leaf age and rain duration on changes in droplet pH and chemistry on leaf surfaces. New Phytologist, 1987, 106(3): 437–456.
Percy KE, Baker EA. Effects of simulated acid rain on leaf wettability, rain retention and uptake of some inorganic ions. New Phytologist, 1988, 108(1): 75–82.
Wang H X, Shi H, Li Y Y. Relationships between leaf surface characteristics and dust capturing capability of urban greening plant species. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(12): 3077–3082. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Liu L, Guan D S, Chen Y Q D. Morphological structure of leaves and dust-capturing capability of common street trees in Guangzhou Municipality. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(8): 2604–2614. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Bradley D J, Gilbert G S, Parker I M. Susceptibility of clover species to fungal infection: the interaction of leaf surface traits and environment. American Journal of Botany, 2003, 90(6): 857–864.
Knoll D, Schreiber L. Influence of epiphytic micro-organisms on leaf wettability: wetting of the upper leaf surface of Juglans regiaand of model surfaces in relation to colonization by micro-organisms. New Phytologist, 1998, 140: 271–282.
Knoll D, Schreiber L. Plant–microbe interactions: wetting of ivy ( Hedera helixL.) leaf surfaces in relation to colonization by epiphytic microorganisms. Microbial Ecology, 2000, 41: 33–42.
Kuo K C, Hoch H C. Germination of Phyllosticta ampelicidapycnidiospores: prerequisite of adhesion to the substratum and the relationship of substratum wettability. Fungal Genetics and Biology, 1996, 20(1): 18–29.
Huber L, Gillespie T J. Modeling leaf wetness in relation to plant disease epidemiology. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1992, 30: 553–577.
Pinon J, Frey P, Husson C. Wettability of poplar leaves influences dew formation and infection by Melampsora larici-populina.Plant Disease, 2006, 90: 177–184.
Cook M. Peanut leaf wettability and susceptibility to infection by Puccinia arachidis. Phytopathology, 1980, 70(8): 826–830.
Van Wittenberghe S, Adriaenssens S, Staelens J, Verheyen K, Samson R. Variability of stomatal conductance, leaf anatomy, and seasonal leaf wettability of young and adult European beech leaves along a vertical canopy gradient. Trees, 2012, 26(5): 1427-1438.
Brewer C A, Smith W K. Leaf surface wetness and gas exchange in the pond lily Nuphar polysepalum(Nymphaeaceae). American Journal of Botany, 1995, 82(10): 1271–1277.
Haines B L, Jernstedt J A, Neufeld H S. Direct foliar effects of simulated acid rain II. Leaf surface characteristics. New Phytologist, 1985, 99: 407–416.
Wilson T B, Bland W L, Norman J M. Measurement and simulation of dew accumulation and drying in potato canopy. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology, 1999, 93: 111–119.
Tanakamaru S, Takehana T, Kimura K. Effect of rainfall exposure on leaf wettability in near-isogenic barley lines with different leaf wax content. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 1998, 54(2): 155–160.
Wohlfahrt G, Bianchi K, Cernusca A. Leaf and stem maximum water storage capacity of herbaceous plants in a mountain meadow. Journal of Hydrology, 2006, 319: 383–390.
Rosado B H P, Holder C D. The significance of leaf water repellency in ecohydrological research: a review. Ecohydrology, 2013, 6(1): 150–161.
Young T. An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1805, 95: 65–87.
Koch K, Hartmann K D, Schreiber L, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C. Influences of air humidity during the cultivation of plants on wax chemical composition, morphology and leaf surface wettability. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2006, 56: 1–9.
Koch K, Bhushan B, Barthlott W. Multifunctional surface structures of plants: an inspiration for biomimetics. Progress in Materials Science, 2009, 54: 137–178.
Wenzel R N. Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 1936, 28: 988–994.
Shirtcliffe N J, McHale G, Atherton S, Newton M I. An introduction to superhydrophobicity. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2010, 161: 124–138.
Marmur A. Wetting on hydrophobic rough surfaces: to be heterogeneous or not to be? Langmuir, 2003, 19(20): 8343–8348.
Cassie A B D, Baxter S. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transaction of the Faraday Society, 1944, 40: 546–551.
Bico J, Thiele U, Quéré D. Wetting of textured surfaces. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2002, 206(1): 41–46.
Yoshimitsu Z, Nakajima A, Watanabe T, Hashimoto K. Effects of surface structure on the hydrophobicity and sliding behavior of water droplets. Langmuir, 2002, 18(15): 5818–5822.
Liu B, Lange F F. Pressure induced transition between superhydrophobic states: configuration diagrams and effect of surface feature size. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2006, 298(2): 899–909.
Bormashenko E, Pogreb R, Whyman G, Erlich M. Cassie–Wenzel wetting transition in vibrating drops deposited on rough surfaces: is the dynamic Cassie–Wenzel wetting transition a 2D or 1D affair? Langmuir, 2007, 23(12): 6501–6503.
Aryal B, Neuner G. Leaf wettability decreases along an extreme altitudinal gradient. Oecologia, 2010, 162: 1–9.
Pogorzelski S J, Rochowski P, Szurkowski J. Pinus sylvestrisL. needle surface wettability parameters as indicators of atmospheric environment pollution impacts: novel contact angle hysteresis methodology. Applied Surface Science, 2014, 292: 857–866.
Takamatsu T, Sase H, Takada J. Some physiological properties of Cryptomeria japonicaleaves from Kanto, Japan: potential factors causing tree decline. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2001, 31: 663–672.
Cape J N. Contact angles of water droplets on needles of Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris) growing in polluted atmosphere. New Phytologist, 1983, 93: 293–299.
Brewer C A, Smith W K, Vogelmann T C. Functional interaction between leaf trichomes, leaf wettability and the optical properties of water droplets. Plant, Cell, and Environment, 1991, 14: 955–962.
Holder C D. Leaf water repellency as an adaptation to tropical montane cloud forest environments. Biotropica, 2007, 39(6): 767–770.
Rosado B H P, Oliveira R S, Aidar M P M. Is leaf water repellency related to vapor pressure deficit and crown exposure in tropical forests? Acta Oecologica, 2010, 36: 645–649.
Holder C D. The relationship between leaf water repellency and leaf traits in three distinct biogeographical regions. Plant Ecology, 2011, 212: 1913–1926.
Nairn J J, Forster W A, van Leeuwen R M. Quantification of physical (roughness) and chemical (dielectric constant) leaf surface properties relevant to wettability and adhesion. Pest Management Science, 2011, 67(12): 1562–1570.
Netting A G, von Wettstein-Knowles P. The physico-chemical basis of leaf wettability in wheat. Planta, 1973, 114(4): 289–309.
Hall D M, Burke W. Wettability of leaves of a section of New Zealand plants. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1974, 12: 283–298.
Paoletti E, Raddi P, La Scala S. Relationships between transpiration, stomatal damage and leaf wettability in declining beech trees. Chemosphere, 1998, 36(4–5): 907–912.
Pandey S, Nagar P K. Leaf surface wetness and morphological characteristics of Valeriana jatamansigrown under open and shade habitats. Biological Plantarum, 2002, 45(2): 291–294.
Brewer C A, Smith W K. Patterns of leaf surface wetness for montane and subalpine plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 1997, 20: 1–11.
Sase H, Takahashi A, Sato M, Kobayashi H, Nakata M, Totsuka T. Seasonal variation in the atmospheric deposition of inorganic constituents and canopy interactions in a Japanese cedar forest. Environmental Pollution, 2008, 152: 1–10.
Sundberg M, Månsson A, Tågerud S. Contact angle measurements by confocal microscopy for non-destructive microscale surface characterization. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2007, 313: 454–460.
Hauck M, Jürgens S R, Brinkmann M, Herminghaus S. Surface hydrophobicity causes SO2 tolerance in lichens. Annals of Botany, 2008, 101: 531–539.
Brewer C A, Smith W K. Influence of simulated dewfall on photosynthesis and yield in soybean isoline ( Glycine max[L.] merr. cv Williams) with different trichome densities. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 1994, 155(4): 460–466.
Yang X D, Shang G R, Li Y T, Xuang M. Surface morphological characteristics comparisons of serious plant leaves with hydrophobic or hydrophilic function. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2006, 38(3): 91–95. (in Chinese with English abstract).
Han Z W, Qiu Z M, Wang S J, Ren L Q. Relationship between non-smooth appearance and wettability of plant leaf surface. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition), 2008, 38(1): 110–115. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Bhushan B, Jung Y C. Wetting, adhesion and friction of superhydrophobic and hydrophilic leaves and fabricated micro/nanopatterned surfaces. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2008, 20. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/20/22/225010.
Fogg G E. Quantitative studies on the wetting of leaves by water. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 1947, 134(877): 503–522.
Contact angle. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact angle. (accessed 12 December 2014).
Shen Q, Ding H G, Zhong L. Characterization of the surface properties of persimmon leaves by FT-Raman spectroscopy and wicking technique. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2004, 37: 133–136.
Letellier P, Mayaffre A, Turmine M. Drop size effect on contact angle explained by nonextensive thermodynamics. Young’s equation revisited. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2007, 314: 604–614.
Schreiber L. Wetting of the upper needle surface of Abies grandis: influence of pH, wax chemistry and epiphyllic microflora on contact angles. Plant, Cell and Environment, 1996, 19: 455–463.
Müller C, Riederer M. Plant surface properties in chemical ecology. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2005, 31(11): 2621–2651.
Kunst L, Samuel A L. Biosynthesis and secretion of plant cuticular wax. Progress in Lipid Research, 2003, 42: 51–80.
Faini F, Labbé C, Coll J. Seasonal changes in chemical composition of epicuticular waxes from the leaves of Baccharis linearis. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 1999, 27: 673–679.
Holloway P J. Chemistry of leaf waxes in relation to wetting. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1969, 20(2): 124–128.
Pal A, Kulshreshtha K, Ahmad K J, Behl H M. Do leaf surface characters play a role in plant resistance to auto-exhaust pollution? Flora, 2002, 197: 47–55.
Cameron K D, Teece M A, Bevilacqua E, Smart L B. Diversity of cuticular wax among Salix species and Populusspecies hybrids. Phytochemistry, 2002, 60(7): 715–725.
Xu S J, Jiang P A, Wang Z W, Wang Y. Crystal structures and chemical composition of leaf surface wax depositions on the desert moss Syntrichia caninervis. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 2010, 37(6): 723–730.
Burton Z, Bhushan B. Surface characterization and adhesion and friction properties of hydrophobic leaf surfaces. Ultramicroscopy, 2006, 106: 709–719.
Boyce R L, McCune D C, Berlyn G P. A comparison of foliar wettability of red spruce and balsam fir growing at high elevation. New Phytologist, 1991, 117(4): 543–555.
Zobra V, Stratakis E, Barberoglou M, Spanakis E, Tzanetakis P, Anastasiadis S H, Fotakis C. Biomimetic artificial surfaces quantitatively reproduce the water repellency of a lotus leaf. Advanced Materials, 2008, 20: 4049–4054.
Guo Z G, Liu W M. Biomimic from the superhydrophobic plant leaves in nature: binary structure and unitary structure. Plant Science, 2007, 172(6): 1103–1112.
Wang S J, Ren L Q, Han Z W, Qiu Z M, Zhou C H.. Non-smooth morphology of typical plant leaf surface and its anti-adhesion and hydrophobicity. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2005, 21(9): 16–19. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Bhushan B, Jung Y C. Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Progress in Materials Science, 2011, 56: 1–108.
Computer graphics of the lotus-effect. http://wthielicke.gmxhome.de/bionik/indexuk.htm (accessed 10 January 2015).
Doheny-Adams T, Hunt L, Franks P J, Beerling D J, Gray J E. Genetic manipulation of stomatal density influences stomatal size, plant growth and tolerance to restricted water supply across a growth carbon dioxide gradient. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2012, 367(1588): 547–555.
Rashidi F, Jalili A, Kafaki S B, Sagheb-Talebi K, Hodgson J. Anatomical responses of leaves of Black Locust ( Robinia pseudoacaciaL.) to urban pollutant gases and climatic factors. Trees, 2012, 26(2): 363–375.
Haworth M, Elliott-Kingston C, Gallagher A, Fitzgerald A, McElwain J C. Sulphur dioxide fumigation effects on stomatal density and index of non-resistant plants: implications for the stomatal palaeo-[CO2] proxy method. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 2012, 185: 44–54.
Carins Murphy M R, Jordan G J, Brodribb T J. Acclimation to humidity modifies the link between leaf size and the density of veins and stomata. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2014, 37(1): 124–131.
Juniper B E, Jeffree C E. Plant Surfaces. London: Edward Arnold, 1983.
Weiss A. Contact angle of water droplets in relation to leaf water potential. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1988, 43(3): 251–259.
Smith W K, McClean T M. Adaptive relationship between leaf water repellency, stomatal distribution, and gas exchange. American Journal of Botany, 1989, 76(3): 465–469.
Rottstock T, Joshi J, Kummer V, Fischer M. Higher plant diversity promotes higher diversity of fungal pathogens, while it decreases pathogen infection per plant. Ecology, 2014, 95: 1907–1917.
Boyette C D, Hoagland R E. Bioherbicidal potential of a strain of Xanthomonasspp. for control of common cocklebur ( Xanthium strumarium). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 2013, 23(2): 183–196.
Szechyńska-Hebda M, Hebda M, Mierzwiński D, Kuczyńska P, Mirek M, Wędzony M, van Lammeren A, Karpiński S. Effect of cold-induced changes in physical and chemical leaf properties on the resistance of winter triticale (× Triticosecale) to the fungal pathogen Microdochium nivale. Plant Pathology, 2013, 62(4): 867–878.
Beckett K P, Freer-Smith P H, Taylor G. Urban woodlands: their role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environmental Pollution, 1998, 99: 347–360.
Nowak D J, Hirabayashi S, Bodine A, Hoehn R. Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten US cities and associated health effects. Environmental Pollution, 2013, 178: 395–402.
Nowak D J, Crane D E, Stevens J C. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2006, 4(3–4): 115–123.
Shi H, Wang H X, Li Y Y. Wettability on plant leaf surfaces and its ecological significance. 2011. ActaEcologicaSinica, 2011, 31(15): 4287‒4298. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Kayode J, Otoide J E. Environmental pollution and leaf cuticular variations in Newbouldia laevisSeem. ex Bureau. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2007, 6(6): 1024–1026.
Gostin I N. Air pollution effects on the leaf structure of some Fabaceaespecies. Natulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 2009, 37(2): 57–63.
Percy K E, Baker E A. Effects of simulated acid rain on production, morphology and composition of epicuticular wax and on cuticular membrane development. New Phytologist, 1987, 107(3): 577–589.