Whiteflies stabilize their take-off with closed wings

Efficiency and Aerodynamic Performance of Bristled Insect Wings Depending on Reynolds Number in Flapping Flight

Insect wings are generally constructed from veins and solid membranes. However, in the case of the smallest flying insects, the wing membrane is often replaced by hair-like bristles. In contrast to large insects, it is possible for both bristled and membranous wings to be simultaneously present in small insect species. There is therefore a continuing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of bristled wings for flight. In this study, we experimentally tested bristled robotic wing models on their ability to generate vertical forces and scored aerodynamic efficiency at Reynolds numbers that are typical for flight in miniature insects. The tested wings ranged from a solid membrane to a few bristles. A generic lift-based wing kinematic pattern moved the wings around their root. The results show that the lift coefficients, power coefficients and Froude efficiency decreased with increasing bristle spacing. Skin friction significantly attenuates lift production, which may even result in negative coefficients at elevated bristle spacing and low Reynolds numbers. The experimental data confirm previous findings from numerical simulations. These had suggested that for small insects, flying with bristled instead of membranous wings involved less change in energetic costs than for large insects. In sum, our findings highlight the aerodynamic changes associated with bristled wing designs and are thus significant for assessing the biological fitness and dispersal of flying insects.

Flight efficiency is a key to diverse wing morphologies in small insects

Insect wings are hybrid structures that are typically composed of veins and solid membranes. In some of the smallest flying insects, however, the wing membrane is replaced by hair-like bristles attached to a solid root. Bristles and membranous wing surfaces coexist in small but not in large insect species. There is no satisfying explanation for this finding as aerodynamic force production is always smaller in bristled than solid wings. This computational study suggests that the diversity of wing structure in small insects results from aerodynamic efficiency rather than from the requirements to produce elevated forces for flight. The tested wings vary from fully membranous to sparsely bristled and were flapped around a wing root with lift- and drag-based wing kinematic patterns and at different Reynolds numbers (Re). The results show that the decrease in aerodynamic efficiency with decreasing surface solidity is significantly smaller at Re = 4 than Re = 57. A replacement of wing membrane by bristles thus causes less change in energetic costs for flight in small compared to large insects. As a consequence, small insects may fly with bristled and solid wing surfaces at similar efficacy, while larger insects must use membranous wings for an efficient production of flight forces. The above findings are significant for the biological fitness and dispersal of insects that fly at elevated energy expenditures.

Insect-inspired jumping robots: challenges and solutions to jump stability

Some insects can jump to heights that are several times their body length. At smaller scales, jumping mechanisms are constrained by issues relating to scaling of power generation, which insects have resolved over the course of their evolution. These solutions have inspired the design of small jumping robots. However, the insect' solution for the power constraint came at a price of instability and limited control over jump performance and these drawbacks were inherited by the jumping robots inspired by them. This review focuses on the jumping mechanisms of insects and robots, the challenges it imposes on control and stability and possible solutions. Although jump stability might not be a critical problem for insects, it poses substantial challenges for engineers of small jumping robots, who hope to develop autonomous devices with improved mobility over rough terrain.

Can electrostatic fields limit the take-off of tiny whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci)?

Electrostatic fields are abundant in the natural environment. We tested the idea that electrostatic attraction forces between tiny whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci) and the substrate could be substantial to the point of limiting their take-off. These insects are characterized by a very small body mass and powerful take-offs that are executed by jumping into the air with the wings closed. Wing opening and transition to active flight occur after the jump distanced the insect several body lengths away from the substrate. Using high-speed cameras, we captured the take-off behavior inside a uniform electrostatic field apparatus and used dead insects to calculate the electric charge that these tiny insects can carry. We show that electrostatic forces stimulate the opening of the insect's wings and can attract the whole insect toward the opposite charge. We also found that whiteflies can carry and hold an electrical charge of up to 3.5 pC. With such a charge the electrostatic field required to impede take-off is much stronger than those typically found in the natural environment. Nevertheless, our results demonstrate that artificial electrostatic fields can be effectively used to suppress flight of whiteflies, thus providing options for pest control applications in greenhouses.

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.

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.

Generation of the pitch moment during the controlled flight after takeoff of fruitflies

In the present paper, the controlled flight of fruitflies after voluntary takeoff is studied. Wing and body kinematics of the insects after takeoff are measured using high-speed video techniques, and the aerodynamic force and moment are calculated by the computational fluid dynamics method based on the measured data. How the control moments are generated is analyzed by correlating the computed moments with the wing kinematics. A fruit-fly has a large pitch-up angular velocity owing to the takeoff jump and the fly controls its body attitude by producing pitching moments. It is found that the pitching moment is produced by changes in both the aerodynamic force and the moment arm. The change in the aerodynamic force is mainly due to the change in angle of attack. The change in the moment arm is mainly due to the change in the mean stroke angle and deviation angle, and the deviation angle plays a more important role than the mean stroke angle in changing the moment arm (note that change in deviation angle implies variation in the position of the aerodynamic stroke plane with respect to the anatomical stroke plane). This is unlike the case of fruitflies correcting pitch perturbations in steady free flight, where they produce pitching moment mainly by changes in mean stroke angle.

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.