Ultrasound-induced yaw movements in the flying Australian field cricket (Teleogryllus oceanicus)

Sound strategies: the 65-million-year-old battle between bats and insects

The intimate details regarding the coevolution of bats and moths have been elucidated over the past 50 years. The bat-moth story began with the evolution of bat sonar, an exquisite ultrasonic system for tracking prey through the night sky. Moths countered with ears tuned to the high frequencies of bat echolocation and with evasive action through directed turns, loops, spirals, drops, and power dives. Some bat species responded by moving the frequency and intensity of their echolocation cries away from the peak sensitivity of moth ears, and the arms race was on. Tiger moths countered by producing anti-bat sounds. Do the sounds advertise moth toxicity, similar to the bright coloration of butterflies; do they startle the bat, giving the moth a momentary advantage in their aerobatic battle; or do they jam the sonar of the bat? The answer is yes. They do all and more in different situations and in different species. Any insect that flies at night must deal with bat predation. Beetles, mantids, true crickets, mole crickets, katydids, green lacewings, and locusts have anti-bat strategies, and we have just scratched the surface. In an exciting new twist, researchers are taking the technologies developed in the laboratory back into the field, where they are poised to appreciate the full richness of this remarkable predator-prey interaction.

Mechanics and aerodynamics of insect flight control

Insects have evolved sophisticated fight control mechanisms permitting a remarkable range of manoeuvres. Here, I present a qualitative analysis of insect flight control from the perspective of flight mechanics, drawing upon both the neurophysiology and biomechanics literatures. The current literature does not permit a formal, quantitative analysis of flight control, because the aerodynamic force systems that biologists have measured have rarely been complete and the position of the centre of gravity has only been recorded in a few studies. Treating the two best-known insect orders (Diptera and Orthoptera) separately from other insects, I discuss the control mechanisms of different insects in detail. Recent experimental studies suggest that the helicopter model of flight control proposed for Drosophila spp. may be better thought of as a facultative strategy for flight control, rather than the fixed (albeit selected) constraint that it is usually interpreted to be. On the other hand, the so-called 'constant-lift reaction' of locusts appears not to be a reflex for maintaining constant lift at varying angles of attack, as is usually assumed, but rather a mechanism to restore the insect to pitch equilibrium following a disturbance. Differences in the kinematic control mechanisms used by the various insect orders are related to differences in the arrangement of the wings, the construction of the flight motor and the unsteady mechanisms of lift production that are used. Since the evolution of insect flight control is likely to have paralleled the evolutionary refinement of these unsteady aerodynamic mechanisms, taxonomic differences in the kinematics of control could provide an assay of the relative importance of different unsteady mechanisms. Although the control kinematics vary widely between orders, the number of degrees of freedom that different insects can control will always be limited by the number of independent control inputs that they use. Control of the moments about all three axes (as used by most conventional aircraft) has only been proven for larger flies and dragonflies, but is likely to be widespread in insects given the number of independent control inputs available to them. Unlike in conventional aircraft, however, insects' control inputs are likely to be highly non-orthogonal, and this will tend to complicate the neural processing required to separate the various motions.

The vibrational startle response of the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria

Substratum vibrations elicit a fast startle response in unrestrained quiescent desert locusts (Schistocerca gregaria). The response is graded with stimulus intensity and consists of a small, rapid but conspicuous movement of the legs and body, but it does not result in any positional change of the animal. With stimuli just above threshold, it begins with a fast twitch of the hindlegs generated by movements of the coxa-trochanter and femur-tibia joints. With increasing stimulus intensity, a rapid movement of all legs may follow, resulting in an up-down movement of the whole body. The magnitude of both the hindleg movement and electromyographic recordings from hindleg extensor and flexor tibiae muscles increases with stimulus amplitude and reaches a plateau at vibration accelerations above 20 m s(−)(2) (peak-to-peak). Hindleg extensor and flexor tibiae muscles in unrestrained animals are co-activated with a mean latency of 30 ms. Behavioural thresholds are as low as 0. 47 m s(−)(2) (peak-to-peak) at frequencies below 100 Hz but rise steeply above 200 Hz. The response habituates rapidly, and inter-stimulus intervals of 2 min or more are necessary to evoke maximal reactions. Intracellular recordings in fixed (upside-down) locusts also revealed co-activation of both flexor and extensor motor neurones with latencies of approximately 25 ms. This shows that the neuronal network underlying the startle movement is functional in a restrained preparation and can therefore be studied in great detail at the level of identified neurones.