Discordancy of two common methods of measuring feather hydrophobicity

IF 1.5 3区 生物学 Q1 ORNITHOLOGY
Sarah C. Deckel, Chad L. Seewagen
{"title":"Discordancy of two common methods of measuring feather hydrophobicity","authors":"Sarah C. Deckel,&nbsp;Chad L. Seewagen","doi":"10.1002/jav.03446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Feather structure contributes greatly to a birds' ability to repel water, which is essential for thermoregulation and energy use. Water repellency of feathers has traditionally been inferred by measuring a structural index based on the distance between the feather radii and vane. A more direct method measures the contact angle of a water droplet resting on the pennaceous vane. This method is used for measuring the water repellency of various materials (e.g. textiles) and we considered it a standard against which the structural index can be validated. Despite widespread use of both techniques, their level of agreement with each other has not been systematically evaluated. Additionally, few studies have tested the direct contribution of uropygial oil to a feather's water repellency. We tested the correlation between the two methods, using feathers from two high-elevation species that are adapted to the cold and wet conditions of montane systems, Swainson's thrush <i>Catharus ustulatus</i> and Bicknell's thrush <i>C. bicknelli</i>. We also compared contact angles measured on feathers before and after removing their coating of uropygial oil. We found no correlation between the methods in either species, which suggests the structural index is not a reliable indicator of feather water repellency. Removing uropygial oil significantly reduced contact angles in both species, demonstrating a direct contribution of the oil to water repellency. The lack of agreement between the structural index and contact angle method may have occurred because the structural index infers water repellency by proxy, whereas the contact angle method more directly measures the degree to which a feather repels water. We consider the contact angle method to also be more standardizable than the structural index, although it requires more sophisticated equipment. We caution against continued use of the structural index and highlight the direct role of uropygial oil in enhancing feather water repellency.</p>","PeriodicalId":15278,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Avian Biology","volume":"2025 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jav.03446","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Avian Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jav.03446","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORNITHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Feather structure contributes greatly to a birds' ability to repel water, which is essential for thermoregulation and energy use. Water repellency of feathers has traditionally been inferred by measuring a structural index based on the distance between the feather radii and vane. A more direct method measures the contact angle of a water droplet resting on the pennaceous vane. This method is used for measuring the water repellency of various materials (e.g. textiles) and we considered it a standard against which the structural index can be validated. Despite widespread use of both techniques, their level of agreement with each other has not been systematically evaluated. Additionally, few studies have tested the direct contribution of uropygial oil to a feather's water repellency. We tested the correlation between the two methods, using feathers from two high-elevation species that are adapted to the cold and wet conditions of montane systems, Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus and Bicknell's thrush C. bicknelli. We also compared contact angles measured on feathers before and after removing their coating of uropygial oil. We found no correlation between the methods in either species, which suggests the structural index is not a reliable indicator of feather water repellency. Removing uropygial oil significantly reduced contact angles in both species, demonstrating a direct contribution of the oil to water repellency. The lack of agreement between the structural index and contact angle method may have occurred because the structural index infers water repellency by proxy, whereas the contact angle method more directly measures the degree to which a feather repels water. We consider the contact angle method to also be more standardizable than the structural index, although it requires more sophisticated equipment. We caution against continued use of the structural index and highlight the direct role of uropygial oil in enhancing feather water repellency.

测定羽毛疏水性的两种常用方法的不一致性
羽毛结构在很大程度上有助于鸟类抵御水分的能力,这对体温调节和能量利用至关重要。传统上,羽毛的防水性是通过测量羽毛半径和叶片之间的距离来推断的。一种更直接的方法是测量停留在叶片上的水滴的接触角。该方法用于测量各种材料(如纺织品)的防水性,我们认为它是结构指标可以验证的标准。尽管这两种技术被广泛使用,但它们彼此之间的一致程度尚未得到系统的评估。此外,很少有研究测试了尿毒油对羽毛防水性能的直接作用。我们测试了两种方法之间的相关性,使用了两种适应山地系统寒冷和潮湿条件的高海拔物种的羽毛,Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus和Bicknell's thrush C. bicknelli。我们还比较了在去除毛油涂层之前和之后在羽毛上测量的接触角。我们发现两种方法之间没有相关性,这表明结构指数不是羽毛拒水性的可靠指标。去除尿臭油显著降低了这两个物种的接触角,证明了油对防水的直接贡献。结构指数和接触角方法之间缺乏一致性可能是因为结构指数通过代理来推断防水性,而接触角方法更直接地测量羽毛的防水程度。我们认为接触角法也比结构指数法更标准化,尽管它需要更复杂的设备。我们警告不要继续使用结构指数,并强调尿鼠油在增强羽毛拒水性方面的直接作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Avian Biology
Journal of Avian Biology 生物-鸟类学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Avian Biology publishes empirical and theoretical research in all areas of ornithology, with an emphasis on behavioural ecology, evolution and conservation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信