scholarly journals Bumblebee flight performance in cluttered environments: effects of obstacle orientation, body size and acceleration

2015 ◽  
Vol 218 (17) ◽  
pp. 2728-2737 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Crall ◽  
S. Ravi ◽  
A. M. Mountcastle ◽  
S. A. Combes
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Cluttered Environments

An association between ear and tail morphologies of bats and their foraging style

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Gardiner ◽  
Jonathan R. Codd ◽  
Robert L. Nudds
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Foraging Strategy ◽  
Aerodynamic Performance ◽  
Variance Analysis ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Wing Membrane ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Scaling Relationships ◽  
Membrane Morphology ◽  
Foraging Flight

Most studies relating bat morphology to flight ecology have concentrated on the wing membrane. Here, canonical variance analysis showed that the ear and tail morphologies of bats also strongly relate to foraging strategy, which in turn is correlated with flight style. Variations in tail membrane morphology are likely to be a trade-off between increases in the mechanical cost of flight and improvements in foraging and flight performance. Flying with large ears is also potentially energetically expensive, particularly at high flight speeds. Large ears, therefore, are only likely to be affordable for slow foraging gleaning bat species. Bats with faster foraging flight styles tend to have smaller ears, possibly to cut the overall drag produced and reduce the power required for flight. Variations in the size of ears and tail membranes appear to be driven primarily by foraging strategy and not by body size, because the scaling relationships found are either weak or not significant. Ear size in bats may be a result of a trade-off between acoustic and aerodynamic performance.

scholarly journals Divergence in Body Mass, Wing Loading, and Population Structure Reveals Species-Specific and Potentially Adaptive Trait Variation Across Elevations in Montane Bumble Bees

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D Lozier ◽  
Zachary M Parsons ◽  
Lois Rachoki ◽  
Jason M Jackson ◽  
Meaghan L Pimsler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Structure ◽  
Body Size ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Bumble Bee ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Wing Loading ◽  
Trait Variation ◽  
Environmental Pressures ◽  
Environmental Correlations ◽  
High Elevations

Abstract Biogeographic clines in morphology along environmental gradients can illuminate forces influencing trait evolution within and between species. Latitude has long been studied as a driver of morphological clines, with a focus on body size and temperature. However, counteracting environmental pressures may impose constraints on body size. In montane landscapes, declines in air density with elevation can negatively impact flight performance in volant species, which may contribute to selection for reduced body mass despite declining temperatures. We examine morphology in two bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus Latreille) species, Bombus vancouverensis Cresson and Bombus vosnesenskii Radoszkowski, across mountainous regions of California, Oregon, and Washington, United States. We incorporate population genomic data to investigate the relationship between genomic ancestry and morphological divergence. We find that B. vancouverensis, which tends to be more specialized for high elevations, exhibits stronger spatial-environmental variation, being smaller in the southern and higher elevation parts of its range and having reduced wing loading (mass relative to wing area) at high elevations. Bombus vosnesenskii, which is more of an elevational generalist, has substantial trait variation, but spatial-environmental correlations are weak. Population structure is stronger in the smaller B. vancouverensis, and we find a significant association between elevation and wing loading after accounting for genetic structure, suggesting the possibility of local adaptation for this flight performance trait. Our findings suggest that some conflicting results for body size trends may stem from distinct environmental pressures that impact different aspects of bumble bee ecology, and that different species show different morphological clines in the same region.

scholarly journals Wind and obstacle motion affect honeybee flight strategies in cluttered environments

2020 ◽  
Vol 223 (14) ◽  
pp. jeb222471
Author(s):  
Nicholas P. Burnett ◽  
Marc A. Badger ◽  
Stacey A. Combes
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Flight Tunnel ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Cluttered Environments ◽  
Ground Speed ◽  
Moving Obstacles ◽  
Speed Up ◽  
Stationary Obstacles

ABSTRACTBees often forage in habitats with cluttered vegetation and unpredictable winds. Navigating obstacles in wind presents a challenge that may be exacerbated by wind-induced motions of vegetation. Although wind-blown vegetation is common in natural habitats, we know little about how the strategies of bees for flying through clutter are affected by obstacle motion and wind. We filmed honeybees Apis mellifera flying through obstacles in a flight tunnel with still air, headwinds or tailwinds. We tested how their ground speeds and centering behavior (trajectory relative to the midline between obstacles) changed when obstacles were moving versus stationary, and how their approach strategies affected flight outcome (successful transit versus collision). We found that obstacle motion affects ground speed: bees flew slower when approaching moving versus stationary obstacles in still air but tended to fly faster when approaching moving obstacles in headwinds or tailwinds. Bees in still air reduced their chances of colliding with obstacles (whether moving or stationary) by reducing ground speed, whereas flight outcomes in wind were not associated with ground speed, but rather with improvement in centering behavior during the approach. We hypothesize that in challenging flight situations (e.g. navigating moving obstacles in wind), bees may speed up to reduce the number of wing collisions that occur if they pass too close to an obstacle. Our results show that wind and obstacle motion can interact to affect flight strategies in unexpected ways, suggesting that wind-blown vegetation may have important effects on foraging behaviors and flight performance of bees in natural habitats.

scholarly journals Extraordinary flight performance of the smallest beetles

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (40) ◽  
pp. 24643-24645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey E. Farisenkov ◽  
Nadejda A. Lapina ◽  
Pyotr N. Petrov ◽  
Alexey A. Polilov
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Reynolds Numbers ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Low Reynolds Numbers ◽  
Horizontal Acceleration ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Basic Biology ◽  
Wing Structure

Size is a key to locomotion. In insects, miniaturization leads to fundamental changes in wing structure and kinematics, making the study of flight in the smallest species important for basic biology and physics, and, potentially, for applied disciplines. However, the flight efficiency of miniature insects has never been studied, and their speed and maneuverability have remained unknown. We report a comparative study of speeds and accelerations in the smallest free-living insects, featherwing beetles (Coleoptera: Ptiliidae), and in larger representatives of related groups of Staphylinoidea. Our results show that the average and maximum flight speeds of larger ptiliids are extraordinarily high and comparable to those of staphylinids that have bodies 3 times as long. This is one of the few known exceptions to the “Great Flight Diagram,” according to which the flight speed of smaller organisms is generally lower than that of larger ones. The horizontal acceleration values recorded in Ptiliidae are almost twice as high as even in Silphidae, which are more than an order of magnitude larger. High absolute and record-breaking relative flight characteristics suggest that the unique morphology and kinematics of the ptiliid wings are effective adaptations to flight at low Reynolds numbers. These results are important for understanding the evolution of body size and flight in insects and pose a challenge to designers of miniature biomorphic aircraft.

Variation in Body Size and Flight Performance in Milkweed Bugs (Oncopeltus)

Evolution ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Dingle ◽  
Nigel R. Blakley ◽  
Elizabeth Ruth Miller
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Flight Performance

scholarly journals Diel Flight Pattern and Flight Performance of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Measured on a Flight Mill: Influence of Age, Gender, Mating Status, and Body Size

2008 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 314-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Sarvary ◽  
Kenneth A. Bloem ◽  
Stephanie Bloem ◽  
James E. Carpenter ◽  
Stephen D. Hight ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Mating Status ◽  
Flight Pattern ◽  
Cactoblastis Cactorum ◽  
Flight Mill ◽  
Lepidoptera Pyralidae

scholarly journals Multi-modal locomotor costs explain sexual size but not shape dimorphism in a leaf-mimicking insect

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain P. Boisseau ◽  
Thies H. Buscher ◽  
Lexi J. Klawitter ◽  
Stanislav N. Gorb ◽  
Douglas J. Emlen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Body Shape ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Large Body Size ◽  
Empirical Measures ◽  
Substrate Adhesion ◽  
Flight Costs ◽  
Lift And Drag ◽  
Shed Light

In most arthropods, adult females are larger than males, and male competition is a race to quickly locate and mate with scattered females (scramble competition polygyny). In this context, smaller males may be favored due to more efficient locomotion leading to higher mobility during mate searching while larger males may benefit from increased speed and higher survivorship. Understanding how body size affects different aspects of the locomotor performance of males is therefore essential to shed light on the evolution of this widespread mating system. Using a combination of empirical measures of flight performance and substrate adhesion, and modelling of body aerodynamics, we show that large body size impairs both flight and landing (attachment) performance in male leaf insects (Phyllium philippinicum), a species where relatively small and skinny males fly through the canopy in search of large sedentary females. Smaller males were more agile in the air, ascended more rapidly during flight, and had a lower risk of detaching from the substrates on which they walk and land. Our models revealed variation in body shape affected body lift and drag, but tradeoffs with weight meant that effects were negligible, suggesting that flight costs do not explain the evolution of strong sexual dimorphism in body shape in this species.

scholarly journals Limitations on Animal Flight Performance

1991 ◽  
Vol 160 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. P. ELLINGTON
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Specific Power ◽  
Small Animals ◽  
Flight Performance ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Speed Range ◽  
Speed Performance ◽  
Flight Muscles ◽  
Animal Flight

Flight performance seems to change systematically with body size: small animals can hover and fly over a wide range of speeds, but large birds taxi for takeoff and then fly over a narrow speed range. The traditional explanation for this is that the mass-specific power required for flight varies with speed according to a U-shaped curve, and it also scales between m0 and m1/6, where m is body mass. The mass-specific power available from the flight muscles is assumed to scale as m−1/3. As available power decreases with increasing body size, the range of attainable flight speeds becomes progressively reduced until the largest animals can only fly in the trough of the U-shaped curve. Above a particular size, the available power is insufficient and flapping flight is not possible. The underlying assumptions of this argument are examined in this review. Metabolic measurements are more consistent with a J-shaped curve, with little change in power from hovering to intermediate flight speeds, than with a U-shaped curve. Scaling of the mass-specific power required to fly agrees with predictions. The mass-specific power available from, the muscles, estimated from maximal loading studies, varies as m0.13. This scaling cannot be distinguished from that of the power required to fly, refuting the argument that power imposes an intrinsic scaling on flight performance. It is suggested instead that limitations on low-speed performance result from an adverse scaling of lift production with increasing body size.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document