Smithornis broadbills produce loud wing song by aeroelastic flutter of medial primary wing feathers

How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird's hum and other animals in flapping flight

How hummingbirds hum is not fully understood, but its biophysical origin is encoded in the acoustic nearfield. Hence, we studied six freely hovering Anna’s hummingbirds, performing acoustic nearfield holography using a 2176 microphone array in vivo, while also directly measuring the 3D aerodynamic forces using a new aerodynamic force platform. We corroborate the acoustic measurements by developing an idealized acoustic model that integrates the aerodynamic forces with wing kinematics, which shows how the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum arises from the oscillating lift and drag forces on each wing. Comparing birds and insects, we find that the characteristic humming timbre and radiated power of their flapping wings originates from the higher harmonics in the aerodynamic forces that support their bodyweight. Our model analysis across insects and birds shows that allometric deviation makes larger birds quieter and elongated flies louder, while also clarifying complex bioacoustic behavior.

Anyone walking outdoors has heard the whooshing sound of birdwings flapping overhead, the buzzing sound of bees flying by, or the whining of mosquitos seeking blood. All animals with flapping wings make these sounds, but the hummingbird makes perhaps the most delightful sound of all: their namesake hum. Yet, how hummingbirds hum is poorly understood.

Bird wings generate large vortices of air to boost their lift and hover in the air that can generate tones. Further, the airflow over bird wings can be highly turbulent, meaning it can generate loud sounds, like the jets of air coming out of the engines of aircraft. Given all the sound-generating mechanisms at hand, it is difficult to determine why some wings buzz whereas others whoosh or hum.

Hightower, Wijnings et al. wanted to understand the physical mechanism that causes animal wings to whine, buzz, hum or whoosh in flight. They hypothesized that the aerodynamic forces generated by animal wings are the main source of their characteristic wing sounds. Hummingbird wings have the most features in common with different animals’ wings, while also featuring acoustically complex feathers. This makes them ideal models for deciphering how birds, bats and even insects make wing sounds.

To learn more about wing sounds, Hightower, Wijnings et al. studied how a species of hummingbird called Anna’s hummingbird hums while drinking nectar from a flower. A three-dimensional ‘acoustic hologram’ was generated using 2,176 microphones to measure the humming sound from all directions. In a follow-up experiment, the aerodynamic forces the hummingbird wings generate to hover were also measured. Their wingbeat was filmed simultaneously in slow-motion in both experiments. Hightower, Wijnings et al. then used a mathematical model that governs the wing’s aeroacoustics to confirm that the aerodynamic forces generated by the hummingbirds’ wings cause the humming sound heard when they hover in front of a flower. The model shows that the oscillating aerodynamic forces generate harmonics, which give the wings’ hum the acoustic quality of a musical instrument.

Using this model Hightower, Wijnings et al. found that the differences in the aerodynamic forces generated by bird and insect wings cause the characteristic timbres of their whines, buzzes, hums, or whooshes. They also determined how these sounds scale with body mass and flapping frequency across 170 insect species and 80 bird species. This showed that mosquitos are unusually loud for their body size due to the unusual unsteadiness of the aerodynamic forces they generate in flight.

These results explain why flying animals’ wings sound the way they do – for example, why larger birds are quieter and mosquitos louder. Better understanding of how the complex forces generated by animal wings create sound can advance the study of how animals change their wingbeat to communicate. Further, the model that explains how complex aerodynamic forces cause sound can help make the sounds of aerial robots, drones, and fans not only more silent, but perhaps more pleasing, like the hum of a hummingbird.

Ways that Animal Wings Produce Sound

There are at least eight ways that wings potentially produce sound. Five mechanisms are aerodynamic sounds, created by airflow, and three are structural sound created by interactions of solid surfaces. Animal flight is low Mach (M), meaning all animals move at <30% of the speed of sound. Thus in aerodynamic mechanisms the effects of air compressibility can be ignored, except in mechanism #1. Mechanism #1 is trapped air, in which air approaches or exceeds Mach 1 as it escapes a constriction. This mechanism is hypothetical but likely. #2 is Gutin sound, the aerodynamic reaction to lift and drag. This mechanism is ubiquitous in flight, and generates low frequency sound such as the humming of hummingbirds or insect wing tones. #3 is turbulence-generated atonal whooshing sounds, which are also widespread in animal flight. #4 are whistles, tonal sounds generated by geometry-induced flow feedback. This mechanism is hypothetical. #5 is aeroelastic flutter, sound generated by elasticity-induced feedback that is usually but not always tonal. This is widespread in birds (feathers are predisposed to flutter) but apparently not bats or insects. Mechanism #6 is rubbing sound (including stridulation), created when bird feathers or insect wings slide past each other. Atonal rubbing sounds are widespread in bird flight and insects; tonal stridulation is widespread in insects. #7 is percussion, created when two stiff elements collide and vibrate, and is present in some birds and insects. Mechanism #8 are tymbals and other bistable conformations. These are stiff elements that snap back and forth between two conformations, producing impulsive, atonal sound. Tymbals are widespread in insects but not birds or bats; insect cuticle appears predisposed to form tymbals. There are few examples of bat wing sounds: are bats intrinsically quiet, or just under-studied? These mechanisms, especially Gutin sound, whooshes, and rubbing (#2, #3, and #6) are prominent cues in ordinary flight of all flying animals, and are the "acoustic substrate" available to be converted from an adventitious sound (cue) into a communication signal. For instance, wing sounds have many times evolved into signals that are incorporated into courtship displays. Conversely, these are the sounds selected to be suppressed if quiet flight is selected for. The physical mechanisms that underlie animal sounds provide context for understanding the ways in which signals and cues may evolve.

Introduction to the Symposium: Bio-Inspiration of Quiet Flight of Owls and Other Flying Animals: Recent Advances and Unanswered Questions

Animal wings produce an acoustic signature in flight. Many owls are able to suppress this noise to fly quietly relative to other birds. Instead of silent flight, certain birds have conversely evolved to produce extra sound with their wings for communication. The papers in this symposium synthesize ongoing research in "animal aeroacoustics": the study of how animal flight produces an acoustic signature, its biological context, and possible bio-inspired engineering applications. Three papers present research on flycatchers and doves, highlighting work that continues to uncover new physical mechanisms by which bird wings can make communication sounds. Quiet flight evolves in the context of a predator-prey interaction, either to help predators such as owls hear its prey better, or to prevent the prey from hearing the approaching predator. Two papers present work on hearing in owls and insect prey. Additional papers focus on the sounds produced by wings during flight, and on the fluid mechanics of force production by flapping wings. For instance, there is evidence that birds such as nightbirds, hawks, or falcons may also have quiet flight. Bat flight appears to be quieter than bird flight, for reasons that are not fully explored. Several research avenues remain open, including the role of flapping versus gliding flight or the physical acoustic mechanisms by which flight sounds are reduced. The convergent interest of the biology and engineering communities on quiet owl flight comes at a time of nascent developments in the energy and transportation sectors, where noise and its perception are formidable obstacles.

Bisonic Mechanical Wing Songs and Complex Kinematics in Aerial Displays of the Subtropical Doradito (Pseudocolopteryx acutipennis)

Loud mechanical sounds with a communication role are called sonations. Male Subtropical Doraditos (Pseudocolopteryx acutipennis) exhibit five conspicuously modified primaries suspected of sonating. Here we (1) describe feather modifications, (2) describe three different territorial/aggressive contexts for these sounds: one-perch aerial displays (1PADs), two-PADs, and Chukrut pursuits, (3) investigate the kinematics of the most common display (1PADs) and the physical mechanisms of sonation using synchronized high-speed video and audio, and (4) assess the roles of modified wing feathers in all contexts by experimental manipulation in four individuals. Primaries p3–p7 were modified in adult males but not in females: p3 was pointed with a reduced distal third to the outer vane; p4 and p5 were slim and falciform with pointed tips curved outwards; p6 was broad, massive, and subtly S-shaped, with a spatulate tip; and p7 was large with the distal third of the outer vane abruptly reduced, and the inner vane with a shallow concave sub-apical emargination. One-PADs consisted of perched short nasal introductory syllables accelerating until the bird performed a super-rapid circular flight of ∽15 cm in diameter from and to the same branch, during which two syringeal syllables and three mechanical syllables were given (chik… chik…. chik-chik frrrottt). The syllables were produced during rapid downstrokes by fluttering feathers and were bisonic, being conformed by two simultaneous main tonal, flat, narrow band sounds: a low-pitched note (f0 ∽1 kHz) and a high-pitched note (f0 ∽3.7 kHz). Primary p7 is the necessary and sufficient sound source of the low-pitched note (removal of p7 caused the sound to disappear) and p3 is the sound source of the high-pitched note, being necessary but perhaps not sufficient (removal of p3 caused the sound to disappear); the other modified feathers seem involved in different roles related to either producing the sonation (p4 and p5 interacting with p3) or allowing it (p6 raising dorsally letting p7 flutter freely; removal of p6 did not affect sound production). The specialized shape of p6 might be compromised to allow sonation of p7 without losing flight functionality. Sonations in Subtropical Doraditos occupy the position of the vocal flourish in the songs of other Pseudocolopteryx suggesting the evolutionary replacement of vocal by mechanical sounds. We propose that wing songs in flying birds may be constrained to occur in temporally broken patterns due to intrinsic features of flapped flight and structurally constrained by the demands of creating an airfoil.

Time spent together and time spent apart affect song, feather colour and range overlap in tinkerbirds

Most studies on the processes driving evolutionary diversification highlight the importance of genetic drift in geographical isolation and natural selection across ecological gradients. Direct interactions among related species have received much less attention, but they can lead to character displacement, with recent research identifying patterns of displacement attributed to either ecological or reproductive processes. Together, these processes could explain complex, trait-specific patterns of diversification. Few studies, however, have examined the possible effects of these processes together or compared the divergence in multiple traits between interacting species among contact zones. Here, we show how traits of two Pogoniulus tinkerbird species vary among regions across sub-Saharan Africa. However, in addition to variation between regions consistent with divergence in refugial isolation, both song and morphology diverge between the species where they coexist. In West Africa, where the species are more similar in plumage, there is possible competitive or reproductive exclusion. In Central and East Africa, patterns of variation are consistent with agonistic character displacement. Molecular analyses support the hypothesis that differences in the age of interaction among regions can explain why species have evolved phenotypic differences and coexist in some regions but not others. Our findings suggest that competitive interactions between species and the time spent interacting, in addition to the time spent in refugial isolation, play important roles in explaining patterns of species diversification.

Kinematic control of male Allen's hummingbird wing trill over a range of flight speeds

Wing trills are pulsed sounds produced by modified wing feathers at one or more specific points in time during a wingbeat. Male Allen's hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin) produce a sexually dimorphic 9 kHz wing trill in flight. Here, we investigated the kinematic basis for trill production. The wingtip velocity hypothesis posits that trill production is modulated by the airspeed of the wingtip at some point during the wingbeat, whereas the wing rotation hypothesis posits that trill production is instead modulated by wing rotation kinematics. To test these hypotheses, we flew six male Allen's hummingbirds in an open-jet wind tunnel at flight speeds of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 m s^-1, and recorded their flight with two 'acoustic cameras' placed below and behind, or below and lateral to the flying bird. The acoustic cameras are phased arrays of 40 microphones that used beamforming to spatially locate sound sources within a camera image. Trill sound pressure level (SPL) exhibited a U-shaped relationship with flight speed in all three camera positions. SPL was greatest perpendicular to the stroke plane. Acoustic camera videos suggest that the trill is produced during supination. The trill was up to 20 dB louder during maneuvers than it was during steady-state flight in the wind tunnel, across all airspeeds tested. These data provide partial support for the wing rotation hypothesis. Altered wing rotation kinematics could allow male Allen's hummingbirds to modulate trill production in social contexts such as courtship displays.

Complex coevolution of wing, tail, and vocal sounds of courting male bee hummingbirds

Phenotypic characters with a complex physical basis may have a correspondingly complex evolutionary history. Males in the "bee" hummingbird clade court females with sound from tail-feathers, which flutter during display dives. On a phylogeny of 35 species, flutter sound frequency evolves as a gradual, continuous character on most branches. But on at least six internal branches fall two types of major, saltational changes: mode of flutter changes, or the feather that is the sound source changes, causing frequency to jump from one discrete value to another. In addition to their tail "instruments," males also court females with sound from their syrinx and wing feathers, and may transfer or switch instruments over evolutionary time. In support of this, we found a negative phylogenetic correlation between presence of wing trills and singing. We hypothesize this transference occurs because wing trills and vocal songs serve similar functions and are thus redundant. There are also three independent origins of self-convergence of multiple signals, in which the same species produces both a vocal (sung) frequency sweep, and a highly similar nonvocal sound. Moreover, production of vocal, learned song has been lost repeatedly. Male bee hummingbirds court females with a diverse, coevolving array of acoustic traits.

Specialized primary feathers produce tonal sounds during flight in rock pigeons (Columba livia)

For centuries, naturalists have suggested that the tonal elements of pigeon wing sounds may be sonations (non-vocal acoustic signals) of alarm. However, spurious tonal sounds may be produced passively as a result of aeroelastic flutter in the flight feathers of almost all birds. Using mechanistic criteria emerging from recent work on sonations, we sought to: (1) identify characteristics of rock pigeon flight feathers that might be adapted for sound production rather than flight, and (2) provide evidence that this morphology is necessary for in vivo sound production and is sufficient to replicate in vivo sounds. Pigeons produce tonal sounds (700±50 Hz) during the latter two-thirds of each downstroke during take-off. These tones are produced when a small region of long, curved barbs on the inner vane of the outermost primary feather (P10) aeroelastically flutters. Tones were silenced in live birds when we experimentally increased the stiffness of this region to prevent flutter. Isolated P10 feathers were sufficient to reproduce in vivo sounds when spun at the peak angular velocity of downstroke (53.9-60.3 rad s(-1)), but did not produce tones at average downstroke velocity (31.8 rad s(-1)), whereas P9 and P1 feathers never produced tones. P10 feathers had significantly lower coefficients of resultant aerodynamic force (CR) when spun at peak angular velocity than at average angular velocity, revealing that production of tonal sounds incurs an aerodynamic cost. P9 and P1 feathers did not show this difference in CR These mechanistic results suggest that the tonal sounds produced by P10 feathers are not incidental and may function in communication.