Search for: All records

Flying insects are thought to achieve energy-efficient flapping flight by storing and releasing elastic energy in their muscles, tendons, and thorax. However, ‘spring-wing’ flight systems consisting of elastic elements coupled to nonlinear, unsteady aerodynamic forces present possible challenges to generating stable and responsive wing motion. The energetic efficiency from resonance in insect flight is tied to the Weis-Fogh number (N), which is the ratio of peak inertial force to aerodynamic force. In this paper, we present experiments and modeling to study how resonance efficiency (which increases withN) influences the control responsiveness and perturbation resistance of flapping wingbeats. In our first experiments, we provide a step change in the input forcing amplitude to a series-elastic spring-wing system and observe the response time of the wing amplitude increase. In our second experiments we provide an external fluid flow directed at the flapping wing and study the perturbed steady-state wing motion. We evaluate both experiments across Weis-Fogh numbers from 1 < N < 10. The results indicate that spring-wing systems designed for maximum energetic efficiency also experience trade-offs in agility and stability as the Weis-Fogh number increases. Our results demonstrate that energetic efficiency and wing maneuverability are in conflict in resonant spring-wing systems, suggesting that mechanical resonance presents tradeoffs in insect flight control and stability. 

An insect’s wingbeat frequency is a critical determinant of its flight performance and varies by multiple orders of magnitude across Insecta. Despite potential energetic benefits for an insect that matches its wingbeat frequency to its resonant frequency, recent work has shown that moths may operate off their resonant peak. We hypothesized that across species, wingbeat frequency scales with resonance frequency to maintain favourable energetics, but with an offset in species that use frequency modulation as a means of flight control. The moth superfamily Bombycoidea is ideal for testing this hypothesis because their wingbeat frequencies vary across species by an order of magnitude, despite similar morphology and actuation. We used materials testing, high-speed videography and a model of resonant aerodynamics to determine how components of an insect’s flight apparatus (stiffness, wing inertia, muscle strain and aerodynamics) vary with wingbeat frequency. We find that the resonant frequency of a moth correlates with wingbeat frequency, but resonance curve shape (described by the Weis-Fogh number) and peak location vary within the clade in a way that corresponds to frequencydependent biomechanical demands. Our results demonstrate that a suite of adaptations in muscle, exoskeleton and wing drive variation in resonant mechanics, reflecting potential constraints on matching wingbeat and resonant frequencies. 

Synopsis Dimensionless numbers have long been used in comparative biomechanics to quantify competing scaling relationships and connect morphology to animal performance. While common in aerodynamics, few relate the biomechanics of the organism to the forces produced on the environment during flight. We discuss the Weis-Fogh number, N, as a dimensionless number specific to flapping flight, which describes the resonant properties of an insect and resulting tradeoffs between energetics and control. Originally defined by Torkel Weis-Fogh in his seminal 1973 paper, N measures the ratio of peak inertial to aerodynamic torque generated by an insect over a wingbeat. In this perspectives piece, we define N for comparative biologists and describe its interpretations as a ratio of torques and as the width of an insect’s resonance curve. We then discuss the range of N realized by insects and explain the fundamental tradeoffs between an insect’s aerodynamic efficiency, stability, and responsiveness that arise as a consequence of variation in N, both across and within species. N is therefore an especially useful quantity for comparative approaches to the role of mechanics and aerodynamics in insect flight. 

An insect’s wingbeat frequency is a critical determinant of its flight performance and varies by multiple orders of magnitude across Insecta. Despite potential energetic benefits for an insect that matches its wingbeat frequency to its resonant frequency, recent work has shown that moths may operate off their resonant peak. We hypothesized that across species, wingbeat frequency scales with resonance frequency to maintain favourable energetics, but with an offset in species that use frequency modulation as a means of flight control. The moth superfamily Bombycoidea is ideal for testing this hypothesis because their wingbeat frequencies vary across species by an order of magnitude, despite similar morphology and actuation. We used materials testing, high-speed videography and a model of resonant aerodynamics to determine how components of an insect’s flight apparatus (stiffness, wing inertia, muscle strain and aerodynamics) vary with wingbeat frequency. We find that the resonant frequency of a moth correlates with wingbeat frequency, but resonance curve shape (described by the Weis-Fogh number) and peak location vary within the clade in a way that corresponds to frequency-dependent biomechanical demands. Our results demonstrate that a suite of adaptations in muscle, exoskeleton and wing drive variation in resonant mechanics, reflecting potential constraints on matching wingbeat and resonant frequencies. 

Abstract Since taking flight, insects have undergone repeated evolutionary transitions between two seemingly distinct flight modes^1–3. Some insects neurally activate their muscles synchronously with each wingstroke. However, many insects have achieved wingbeat frequencies beyond the speed limit of typical neuromuscular systems by evolving flight muscles that are asynchronous with neural activation and activate in response to mechanical stretch^2–8. These modes reflect the two fundamental ways of generating rhythmic movement: time-periodic forcing versus emergent oscillations from self-excitation^8–10. How repeated evolutionary transitions have occurred and what governs the switching between these distinct modes remain unknown. Here we find that, despite widespread asynchronous actuation in insects across the phylogeny^3,6, asynchrony probably evolved only once at the order level, with many reversions to the ancestral, synchronous mode. A synchronous moth species, evolved from an asynchronous ancestor, still preserves the stretch-activated muscle physiology. Numerical and robophysical analyses of a unified biophysical framework reveal that rather than a dichotomy, these two modes are two regimes of the same dynamics. Insects can transition between flight modes across a bridge in physiological parameter space. Finally, we integrate these two actuation modes into an insect-scale robot^11–13that enables transitions between modes and unlocks a new self-excited wingstroke strategy for engineered flight. Together, this framework accounts for repeated transitions in insect flight evolution and shows how flight modes can flip with changes in physiological parameters. 

ABSTRACT Foraging insects fly over long distances through complex aerial environments, and many can maintain constant ground speeds in wind, allowing them to gauge flight distance. Although insects encounter winds from all directions in the wild, most lab-based studies have employed still air or headwinds (i.e. upwind flight); additionally, insects are typically compelled to fly in a single, fixed environment, so we know little about their preferences for different flight conditions. We used automated video collection and analysis methods and a two-choice flight tunnel paradigm to examine thousands of foraging flights performed by hundreds of bumblebees flying upwind and downwind. In contrast to the preference for flying with a tailwind (i.e. downwind) displayed by migrating insects, we found that bees prefer to fly upwind. Bees maintained constant ground speeds when flying upwind or downwind in flow velocities from 0 to 2 m s−1 by adjusting their body angle, pitching down to raise their air speed above flow velocity when flying upwind, and pitching up to slow down to negative air speeds (flying backwards relative to the flow) when flying downwind. Bees flying downwind displayed higher variability in body angle, air speed and ground speed. Taken together, bees' preference for upwind flight and their increased kinematic variability when flying downwind suggest that tailwinds may impose a significant, underexplored flight challenge to bees. Our study demonstrates the types of questions that can be addressed with newer approaches to biomechanics research; by allowing bees to choose the conditions they prefer to traverse and automating filming and analysis to examine massive amounts of data, we were able to identify significant patterns emerging from variable locomotory behaviors, and gain valuable insight into the biomechanics of flight in natural environments.