Search for: All records

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. 

Heat waves are becoming increasingly common due to climate change, making it crucial to identify and understand the capacities for insect pollinators, such as honey bees, to avoid overheating. We examined the effects of hot, dry air temperatures on the physiological and behavioral mechanisms that honey bees use to fly when carrying nectar loads, to assess how foraging is limited by overheating or desiccation. We found that flight muscle temperatures increased linearly with load mass at air temperatures of 20 or 30 °C, but, remarkably, there was no change with increasing nectar loads at an air temperature of 40 °C. Flying, nectar-loaded bees were able to avoid overheating at 40 °C by reducing their flight metabolic rates and increasing evaporative cooling. At high body temperatures, bees apparently increase flight efficiency by lowering their wingbeat frequency and increasing stroke amplitude to compensate, reducing the need for evaporative cooling. However, even with reductions in metabolic heat production, desiccation likely limits foraging at temperatures well below bees’ critical thermal maxima in hot, dry conditions. 

Flying insects often forage among cluttered vegetation that forms a series of obstacles in their flight path. Recent studies have focused on behaviors needed to navigate clutter while avoiding all physical contact and, as a result, we know little about flight behaviors that do involve encounters with obstacles. Here, we challenged carpenter bees (Xylocopa varipuncta) to fly through narrow gaps in an obstacle course to determine the kinds of obstacle encounters they experience, as well as the consequences for flight performance. We observed three kinds of encounters: leg, body and wing collisions. Wing collisions occurred most frequently (in about 40% of flights, up to 25 times per flight) but these had little effect on flight speed or body orientation. In contrast, body and leg collisions, which each occurred in about 20% of flights (1–2 times per flight), resulted in decreased flight speeds and increased rates of body rotation (yaw). Wing and body collisions, but not leg collisions, were more likely to occur in wind versus still air. Thus, physical encounters with obstacles may be a frequent occurrence for insects flying in some environments, and the immediate effects of these encounters on flight performance depend on the body part involved. 

Maximum vertical force production (Fvert) is an integral measure of flight performance that generally scales with size. Numerous methods of measuring Fvert and body size are accessible to entomologists, but we do not know whether method selection affects inter- and intraspecific comparisons of Fvert-size scaling. We compared two common techniques for measuring Fvert in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) and mason bees (Osmia lignaria), and examined Fvert scaling using five size metrics. Fvert results were similar with incremental or asymptotic load-lifting, but scaling analyses were sensitive to the size metric used. Analyses based on some size metrics indicated similar scaling exponents and coefficients between species, whereas other metrics indicated coefficients that differed by up to 18%. Furthermore, Fvert showed isometry with body lengths and fed and starved masses, but negative allometry with dry mass. We conclude that Fvert can be measured using either incremental or asymptotic loading but choosing a size metric for scaling studies requires careful consideration. 

Foraging bees fly with heavy loads of nectar and pollen, incurring energetic costs that are typically assumed to depend on load size. Insects can produce more force by increasing stroke amplitude and/or flapping frequency, but the kinematic response of a given species is thought to be consistent. We examined bumblebees ( Bombus impatiens ) carrying both light and heavy loads and found that stroke amplitude increased in proportion to load size, but did not predict metabolic rate. Rather, metabolic rate was strongly tied to frequency, which was determined not by load size but by the bee’s average loading state and loading history, with heavily loaded bees displaying smaller changes in frequency and smaller increases in metabolic rate to support additional loading. This implies that bees can increase force production through alternative mechanisms; yet, they often choose the energetically costly option of elevating frequency, suggesting associated performance benefits that merit further investigation.