Jumping mechanisms in lacewings (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae)

Putting a new spin on insect jumping performance using 3D modeling and computer simulations of spotted lanternfly nymphs

How animals jump and land on diverse surfaces is ecologically important and relevant to bioinspired robotics. Here, we describe the jumping biomechanics of the planthopper Lycorma delicatula (spotted lanternfly), an invasive insect in the USA that jumps frequently for dispersal, locomotion and predator evasion. High-speed video was used to analyze jumping by spotted lanternfly nymphs from take-off to impact on compliant surfaces. These insects used rapid hindleg extensions to achieve high take-off speeds (2.7-3.4 m s-1) and accelerations (800-1000 m s-2), with mid-air trajectories consistent with ballistic motion without drag forces or steering. Despite rotating rapidly (5-45 Hz) about time-varying axes of rotation, they landed successfully in 58.9% of trials. They also attained the most successful impact orientation significantly more often than predicted by chance, consistent with their using attitude control. Notably, these insects were able to land successfully when impacting surfaces at all angles, pointing to the importance of collisional recovery behaviors. To further understand their rotational dynamics, we created realistic 3D rendered models of spotted lanternflies and used them to compute their mechanical properties during jumping. Computer simulations based on these models and drag torques estimated from fits to tracked data successfully predicted several features of the measured rotational kinematics. This analysis showed that the rotational inertia of spotted lanternfly nymphs is predominantly due to their legs, enabling them to use posture changes as well as drag torque to control their angular velocity, and hence their orientation, thereby facilitating predominately successful landings when jumping.

Jumping mechanism in the marsh beetles (Coleoptera: Scirtidae)

The jumping mechanism with supporting morphology and kinematics is described in the marsh beetle Scirtes hemisphaericus (Coleoptera: Scirtidae). In marsh beetles, the jump is performed by the hind legs by the rapid extension of the hind tibia. The kinematic parameters of the jump are: 139–1536 m s⁻² (acceleration), 0.4–1.9 m s⁻¹ (velocity), 2.7–8.4 ms (time to take-off), 0.2–5.4 × 10^–6 J (kinetic energy) and 14–156 (g-force). The power output of a jumping leg during the jumping movement is 3.5 × 10³ to 9.6 × 10³ W kg⁻¹. A resilin-bearing elastic extensor ligament is considered to be the structure that accumulates the elastic strain energy. The functional model of the jumping involving an active latching mechanism is proposed. The latching mechanism is represented by the conical projection of the tibial flexor sclerite inserted into the corresponding socket of the tibial base. Unlocking is triggered by the contraction of flexor muscle pulling the tibial flexor sclerite backwards which in turn comes out of the socket. According to the kinematic parameters, the time of full extension of the hind tibia, and the value of the jumping leg power output, this jumping mechanism is supposed to be latch-mediated spring actuation using the contribution of elastically stored strain energy.

Takeoff diversity in Diptera

The order Diptera (true flies) are named for their two wings because their hindwings have evolved into specialized mechanosensory organs called halteres. Flies use halteres to detect body rotations and maintain stability during flight and other behaviours. The most recently diverged dipteran monophyletic subsection, the Calyptratae, is highly successful, accounting for approximately 12% of dipteran diversity, and includes common families like house flies. These flies move their halteres independently from their wings and oscillate their halteres during walking. Here, we demonstrate that this subsection of flies uses their halteres to stabilize their bodies during takeoff, whereas non-Calyptratae flies do not. We find that flies of the Calyptratae are able to take off more rapidly than non-Calyptratae flies without sacrificing stability. Haltere removal decreased both velocity and stability in the takeoffs of Calyptratae, but not other flies. The loss of takeoff velocity following haltere removal in Calyptratae (but not other flies) is a direct result of a decrease in leg extension speed. A closely related non-Calyptratae species (D. melanogaster) also has a rapid takeoff, but takeoff duration and stability are unaffected by haltere removal. Haltere use thus allows for greater speed and stability during fast escapes, but only in the Calyptratae clade.

Why do Large Animals Never Actuate Their Jumps with Latch-Mediated Springs? Because They can Jump Higher Without Them

As animals get smaller, their ability to generate usable work from muscle contraction is decreased by the muscle's force-velocity properties, thereby reducing their effective jump height. Very small animals use a spring-actuated system, which prevents velocity effects from reducing available energy. Since force-velocity properties reduce the usable work in even larger animals, why don't larger animals use spring-actuated jumping systems as well? We will show that muscle length-tension properties limit spring-actuated systems to generating a maximum one-third of the possible work that a muscle could produce-greatly restricting the jumping height of spring-actuated jumpers. Thus a spring-actuated jumping animal has a jumping height that is one-third of the maximum possible jump height achievable were 100% of the possible muscle work available. Larger animals, which could theoretically use all of the available muscle energy, have a maximum jumping height that asymptotically approaches a value that is about three times higher than that of spring-actuated jumpers. Furthermore, a size related "crossover point" is evident for these two jumping mechanisms: animals smaller than this point can jump higher with a spring-actuated mechanism, while animals larger than this point can jump higher with a muscle-actuated mechanism. We demonstrate how this limit on energy storage is a consequence of the interaction between length-tension properties of muscles and spring stiffness. We indicate where this crossover point occurs based on modeling and then use jumping data from the literature to validate that larger jumping animals generate greater jump heights with muscle-actuated systems than spring-actuated systems.

Jumping and take-off in a winged scorpion fly (Mecoptera, Panorpa communis)

High-speed videos were used to analyse whether and how adults of a winged species of scorpion fly (Mecoptera, Panorpa communis) jump and determine whether they use the same mechanism as that of the only other mecopteran known to jump, the wingless snow flea, Boreus hyemalis Adult females are longer and heavier than males and have longer legs, but of the same relative proportions. The middle legs are 20% longer and the hind legs 60% longer than the front legs. A jump starts with the middle and hind legs in variable positions, but together, by depressing their coxo-trochanteral and extending their femoro-tibial joints, they accelerate the body in 16-19 ms to mean take-off velocities of 0.7-0.8 m s^-1; performances in males and females were not significantly different. Depression of the wings accompanies these leg movements, but clipping them does not affect jump performance. Smooth transition to flapping flight occurs once airborne with little loss of energy to body rotation. Ninety percent of the jumps analysed occurred without an observable stimulus; the remaining 10% were in response to a mechanical touch. The performance of these jumps was not significantly different. In its fastest jumps, a scorpion fly experiences an acceleration of 10 g , expends 23 µJ of energy and requires a power output less than 250 W kg^-1 of muscle that can be met by direct muscle contractions without invoking an indirect power amplification mechanism. The jumping mechanism is like that of snow fleas.

Effectiveness and efficiency of two distinct mechanisms for take-off in a derbid planthopper insect

Analysis of the kinematics of take-off in the planthopper Proutista moesta (Hemiptera, Fulgoroidea, family Derbidae) from high-speed videos showed that these insects used two distinct mechanisms involving different appendages. The first was a fast take-off (55.7% of 106 take-offs by 11 insects) propelled by a synchronised movement of the two hind legs and without participation of the wings. The body was accelerated in 1 ms or less to a mean take-off velocity of 1.7 m s^-1 while experiencing average forces of more than 150 times gravity. The power required from the leg muscles implicated a power-amplification mechanism. Such take-offs propelled the insect along its trajectory a mean distance of 7.9 mm in the first 5 ms after take-off. The second and slower take-off mechanism (44.3% of take-offs) was powered by beating movements of the wings alone, with no discernible contribution from the hind legs. The resulting mean acceleration time was 16 times slower at 17.3 ms, the mean final velocity was six times lower at 0.27 m s^-1, the g forces experienced were 80 times lower and the distance moved in 5 ms after take-off was 7 times shorter. The power requirements could be readily met by direct muscle contraction. The results suggest a testable hypothesis that the two mechanisms serve distinct behavioural actions: the fast take-offs could enable escape from predators and the slow take-offs that exert much lower ground reaction forces could enable take-off from more flexible substrates while also displacing the insect in a slower and more controllable trajectory.

Do enlarged hind legs of male thick-legged flower beetles contribute to take-off or mating?

The volume of the hind femora in adult male flower beetles, Oedemera nobilis, is 38 times greater than in adult females. To determine what advantage limbs with swollen femora might provide, the behaviour of these insects was analysed with high speed videography. First, because large hind legs are often associated with jumping and take-off, the performance of this behaviour by the two sexes was determined. Take-off was generated by a series of small amplitude wing beats followed by larger ones with the hind legs contributing little or no propulsion. The mean acceleration time to take-off was not significantly different in males (46.2 ms) and females (45.5 ms), but the mean take-off velocity of males was 10% higher than in females. Second, to determine if enlarged hind legs were critical in specifically male behaviour, interactions between males and females, and between males were videoed. A male mounted a female and then encircled her abdomen between the enlarged femora and tibiae of both his hind legs. The joint between these leg parts acted like a mole wrench (vise grip) so that when the tibia was fully flexed a triangular space of 0.3 square mm remained in which a female abdomen (cross-sectional area 0.9 square mm) could be compressed and restrained firmly without inflicting damage. The flexor tibiae muscle in a male hind femur was 5.9 times larger than the extensor. In interactions between males, attempts to achieve a similar entrapment were frequently thwarted by the pursued male extending his hind legs vertically.

The principles of cascading power limits in small, fast biological and engineered systems

Mechanical power limitations emerge from the physical trade-off between force and velocity. Many biological systems incorporate power-enhancing mechanisms enabling extraordinary accelerations at small sizes. We establish how power enhancement emerges through the dynamic coupling of motors, springs, and latches and reveal how each displays its own force-velocity behavior. We mathematically demonstrate a tunable performance space for spring-actuated movement that is applicable to biological and synthetic systems. Incorporating nonideal spring behavior and parameterizing latch dynamics allows the identification of critical transitions in mass and trade-offs in spring scaling, both of which offer explanations for long-observed scaling patterns in biological systems. This analysis defines the cascading challenges of power enhancement, explores their emergent effects in biological and engineered systems, and charts a pathway for higher-level analysis and synthesis of power-amplified systems.

Energy and time optimal trajectories in exploratory jumps of the spider Phidippus regius

Jumping spiders are proficient jumpers that use jumps in a variety of behavioural contexts. We use high speed, high resolution video to measure the kinematics of a single regal jumping spider for a total of 15 different tasks based on a horizontal gap of 2–5 body lengths and vertical gap of +/−2 body lengths. For short range jumps, we show that low angled trajectories are used that minimise flight time. For longer jumps, take-off angles are steeper and closer to the optimum for minimum energy cost of transport. Comparison of jump performance against other arthropods shows that Phidippus regius is firmly in the group of animals that use dynamic muscle contraction for actuation as opposed to a stored energy catapult system. We find that the jump power requirements can be met from the estimated mass of leg muscle; hydraulic augmentation may be present but appears not to be energetically essential.

The effect of air resistance on the jump performance of a small parasitoid wasp, Anagyrus pseudococci (Encyrtidae)

The distance a small insect moves through air during a jump is limited by the launch velocity at take-off and by air resistance. The launch velocity is limited by the length of the jumping legs and the maximum power that the jump apparatus can provide for pushing against the ground. The effect of air resistance is determined by the insect mass-to-area ratio. Both limitations are highly dependent on the body size, making high jumps a challenge for smaller insects. We studied both effects in the tiny Encyrtid wasp Anagyrus pseudococci. Males are smaller than females (mean body length 1.2 and 1.8 mm, respectively), but both sexes take-off in a powerful jump. Using high-speed cameras, we analyzed the relationship between take-off kinematics and distance traveled through air. We show that the velocity, acceleration and mass-specific power while leaving the ground places A. pseudococci among the most prominent jumpers of the insect world. However, the absolute distance moved through air is modest compared to other jumping insects, due to air resistance acting on the small body. A biomechanical model suggests that air resistance reduces the jump distance of these insects by 49%, compared to jumping in the absence of air resistance. The effect of air resistance is more pronounced in the smaller males resulting in a segregation of the jumping performance between sexes. The limiting effect of air resistance is inversely proportional to body mass, seriously constraining jumping as a form of moving through air in these and other small insects.

Jumping performance of flea hoppers and other mirid bugs (Hemiptera, Miridae)

The order Hemiptera includes jumping insects with the fastest take-off velocities, all generated by catapult mechanisms. It also contains the large family Miridae or plant bugs. Here, we analysed the jumping strategies and mechanisms of six mirid species from high-speed videos and from the anatomy of their propulsive legs, and conclude that they use a different mechanism in which jumps are powered by the direct contractions of muscles. Three strategies were identified. First, jumping was propelled only by movements of the middle and hind legs, which were, respectively, 140% and 190% longer than the front legs. In three species with masses ranging from 3.4 to 12.2 mg, depression of the coxo-trochanteral and extension of femoro-tibial joints accelerated the body in 8-17 ms to take-off velocities of 0.5-0.8 m s^-1 The middle legs lost ground contact 5-6 ms before take-off so that the hind legs generated the final propulsion. The power requirements could be met by the direct muscle contractions so that catapult mechanisms were not implicated. Second, other species combined the same leg movements with wing beating to generate take-off during a wing downstroke. Third, up to four wingbeat cycles preceded take-off and were not assisted by leg movements. Take-off velocities were reduced and acceleration times lengthened. Other species from the same habitat did not jump. The lower take-off velocities achieved by powering jumping by direct muscle contractions may be offset by eliminating the time taken to load catapult mechanisms.

Take-off mechanisms in parasitoid wasps

High speed video analyses of the natural behaviour of parasitoid wasps revealed three strategies used to launch themselves into the air. Which strategy is the most energy efficient? In Pteromalus puparum, 92% of take-offs by were propelled entirely by movements of the middle and hind legs which were depressed at their coxo-trochanteral and extended at their femoro-tibial joints. The front legs left the ground first, followed by the hind legs, so that the middle legs provided the final propulsion. Second, in other species of a similar mass, Cotesia glomerata and Leptopilina boulardi, all take-offs were propelled by a mean of 2.8 and 3.8 wingbeats respectively with little or no contribution from the legs. The first strategy resulted in take-off times that were four times shorter (5 versus 22.8 ms) and take-off velocities that were four times faster (0.8 versus 0.2 m s–1). Calculations from the kinematics indicate that propulsion by the legs was the most energy efficient strategy, because more energy is put into propulsion of the body, whereas in take-off propelled by repetitive wing movements energy is lost to generating these movements and moving the air. In heavier species such as Netelia testacea and Amblyteles armatorius, take-off was propelled by the combined movements of the middle and hind legs and wingbeats. In A. armatorius, this resulted in the longest mean take-off time of 33.8 ms but an intermediate take-off velocity of 0.4 m s–1. In all three strategies the performance could be explained without invoking energy storage and power amplification mechanisms.

Diversity in Morphology and Locomotory Behavior Is Associated with Niche Expansion in the Semi-aquatic Bugs

Acquisition of new ecological opportunities is a major driver of adaptation and species diversification [1, 2, 3, 4]. However, how groups of organisms expand their habitat range is often unclear [3]. We study the Gerromorpha, a monophyletic group of heteropteran insects that occupy a large variety of water surface-associated niches, from small puddles to open oceans [5, 6]. Due to constraints related to fluid dynamics [7, 8, 9] and exposure to predation [5, 10], we hypothesize that selection will favor high speed of locomotion in the Gerromorpha that occupy water-air interface niches relative to the ancestral terrestrial life style. Through biomechanical assays and phylogenetic reconstruction, we show that only species that occupy water surface niches can generate high maximum speeds. Basally branching lineages with ancestral mode of locomotion, consisting of tripod gait, achieved increased speed on the water through increasing midleg length, stroke amplitude, and stroke frequency. Derived lineages evolved rowing as a novel mode of locomotion through simultaneous sculling motion almost exclusively of the midlegs. We demonstrate that this change in locomotory behavior significantly reduced the requirement for high stroke frequency and energy expenditure. Furthermore, we show how the evolution of rowing, by reducing stroke frequency, may have eliminated the constraint on body size, which may explain the evolution of larger Gerromorpha. This correlation between the diversity in locomotion behaviors and niche specialization suggests that changes in morphology and behavior may facilitate the invasion and diversification in novel environments.

•

Semi-aquatic bugs are adapted to life on water surface niches worldwide

•

Life on the water surface requires high locomotory maximum speed

•

Increased speed was achieved through changes in leg length and locomotion behavior

•

Derived lineages evolved rowing, an energy-efficient mode of locomotion on water

Whiteflies stabilize their take-off with closed wings

The transition from ground to air in flying animals is often assisted by the legs pushing against the ground as the wings start to flap. Here, we show that when tiny whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci, body length ca. 1 mm) perform take-off jumps with closed wings, the abrupt push against the ground sends the insect into the air rotating forward in the sagittal (pitch) plane. However, in the air, B. tabaci can recover from this rotation remarkably fast (less than 11 ms), even before spreading its wings and flapping. The timing of body rotation in air, a simplified biomechanical model and take-off in insects with removed wings all suggest that the wings, resting backwards alongside the body, stabilize motion through air to prevent somersaulting. The increased aerodynamic force at the posterior tip of the body results in a pitching moment that stops body rotation. Wing deployment increases the pitching moment further, returning the body to a suitable angle for flight. This inherent stabilizing mechanism is made possible by the wing shape and size, in which half of the wing area is located behind the posterior tip of the abdomen.

Jumping mechanisms in adult caddis flies (Insecta, Trichoptera)

To understand the jumping mechanisms and strategies of adult caddis flies, leg morphology and movements were analysed in three species with mean masses of 3.9 to 38 mg. Two distinct jumping strategies were found. First (67% of 90 jumps), take-off was propelled solely by the middle and hind legs while the wings remained closed. Second (33% of jumps), the same leg movements were combined with wing movements before take-off. The hind legs were 70% and the middle legs were 50% longer than the front legs and represented 105% and 88%, respectively, of body length. Both hind and middle trochantera were depressed together, approximately 15 ms before take-off. The front legs apparently did not contribute to thrust in either strategy and were the first to be lifted from the ground. The hind legs were the next to lose contact, so that the middle legs alone provided the final thrust before take-off. Jumping performance did not differ significantly in the two jumping strategies or between species, in acceleration times (range of means for the three species 14.5–15.4 ms), take-off velocities (range 0.7–1 m s−1) and trajectory angles. A significant difference in jumps propelled only by the legs was the lower angle (9.3±1.9 deg) of the body relative to the horizontal at take-off compared with jumps involving wing movements (35.3±2.5 deg). Calculations from the kinematics indicated that jumps were produced by direct muscle contractions and did not require power amplification or energy storage.

Jumping mechanisms and strategies in moths (Lepidoptera)

To test whether jumping launches moths into the air, take-off by 58 species, ranging in mass from 0.1 to 220 mg, was captured in videos at 1000 frames s−1. Three strategies for jumping were identified. First, rapid movements of both middle and hind legs provided propulsion while the wings remained closed. Second, middle and hind legs again provided propulsion but the wings now opened and flapped after take-off. Third, wing and leg movements both began before take-off and led to an earlier transition to powered flight. The middle and hind legs were of similar lengths and were between 10 and 130% longer than the front legs. The rapid depression of the trochantera and extension of the middle tibiae began some 3 ms before similar movements of the hind legs, but their tarsi lost contact with the ground before take-off. Acceleration times ranged from 10 ms in the lightest moths to 25 ms in the heaviest ones. Peak take-off velocities varied from 0.6 to 0.9 m s−1 in all moths, with the fastest jump achieving a velocity of 1.2 m s−1. The energy required to generate the fastest jumps was 1.1 µJ in lighter moths but rose to 62.1 µJ in heavier ones. Mean accelerations ranged from 26 to 90 m s−2 and a maximum force of 9 g was experienced. The highest power output was within the capability of normal muscle so that jumps were powered by direct contractions of muscles without catapult mechanisms or energy storage.