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

Seismic localization of elephant rumbles as a monitoring approach

African elephants (Loxodonta africana) are sentient and intelligent animals that use a variety of vocalizations to greet, warn or communicate with each other. Their low-frequency rumbles propagate through the air as well as through the ground and the physical properties of both media cause differences in frequency filtering and propagation distances of the respective wave. However, it is not well understood how each mode contributes to the animals' abilities to detect these rumbles and extract behavioural or spatial information. In this study, we recorded seismic and co-generated acoustic rumbles in Kenya and compared their potential use to localize the vocalizing animal using the same multi-lateration algorithms. For our experimental set-up, seismic localization has higher accuracy than acoustic, and bimodal localization does not improve results. We conclude that seismic rumbles can be used to remotely monitor and even decipher elephant social interactions, presenting us with a tool for far-reaching, non-intrusive and surprisingly informative wildlife monitoring.

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.

Humming hummingbirds, insect flight tones and a model of animal flight sound

Why do hummingbirds hum and insects whine when their wings flap in flight? Gutin proposed that a spinning propeller produces tonal sound because the location of the center of aerodynamic pressure on each blade oscillates relative to an external receiver. Animal wings also move, and in addition, aerodynamic force produced by animal wings fluctuates in magnitude and direction over the course of the wingbeat. Here, we modeled animal wing tone as the equal, opposite reaction to aerodynamic forces on the wing, using Lowson's equation for the sound field produced by a moving point force. Two assumptions of Lowson's equation were met: animal flight is low (<0.3) Mach and animals from albatrosses to mosquitoes are acoustically compact, meaning they have a small spatial extent relative to the wavelength of their wingbeat frequency. This model predicted the acoustic waveform of a hovering Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae), which varies in the x, y and z directions around the animal. We modeled the wing forces of a hovering animal as a sinusoid with an amplitude equal to body weight. This model predicted wing sound pressure levels below a hovering hummingbird and mosquito to within 2 dB; and that far-field mosquito wing tone attenuates to 20 dB within about 0.2 m of the animal, while hummingbird humming attenuates to 20 dB at about 10 m. Wing tone plays a role in communication of certain insects, such as mosquitoes, and influences predator-prey interactions, because it potentially reveals the predator's presence to its intended prey.

Sonations in Migratory and Non-migratory Fork-tailed Flycatchers (Tyrannus savana)

Sonations are sounds that animals produce with structures other than the vocal apparatus for communication. In birds, many sonations are usually produced with modified flight feathers through diverse kinematic mechanisms. For instance, aeroelastic fluttering of feathers produces tonal sound when airflow exceeds a threshold velocity and induces flight feathers to oscillate at a constant frequency. The Fork-tailed flycatcher (Tyrannus savana) is a Neotropical bird with both migratory and year-round resident subspecies that differ in the shape of the outer primary feathers of their wings. By integrating behavioral observations, audio recordings, and high-speed videos, we find that male Fork-tailed flycatchers produce sonations with their outer primary feathers P8-10, and possibly P7. These sounds are produced during different behavioral contexts including: the pre-dawn display, intraspecific territorial disputes, when attacking potential nest predators, and when escaping. By placing feathers in a wind tunnel, we elicited flutter at frequencies that matched the acoustic signature of sounds recorded in the wild, indicating that the kinematic mechanism responsible for sound production is aeroelastic flutter. Video of wild birds indicated that sonations were produced during the downstroke. Finally, the feathers of migratory (T.s.savana) and year-round resident (T.s.monachus) Fork-tailed flycatchers flutter in feather locations that differ in shape between the subspecies, and these shape differences between the subspecies result in sounds produced at different frequencies.

Acoustic localization of terrestrial wildlife: Current practices and future opportunities

Autonomous acoustic recorders are an increasingly popular method for low-disturbance, large-scale monitoring of sound-producing animals, such as birds, anurans, bats, and other mammals. A specialized use of autonomous recording units (ARUs) is acoustic localization, in which a vocalizing animal is located spatially, usually by quantifying the time delay of arrival of its sound at an array of time-synchronized microphones. To describe trends in the literature, identify considerations for field biologists who wish to use these systems, and suggest advancements that will improve the field of acoustic localization, we comprehensively review published applications of wildlife localization in terrestrial environments. We describe the wide variety of methods used to complete the five steps of acoustic localization: (1) define the research question, (2) obtain or build a time-synchronizing microphone array, (3) deploy the array to record sounds in the field, (4) process recordings captured in the field, and (5) determine animal location using position estimation algorithms. We find eight general purposes in ecology and animal behavior for localization systems: assessing individual animals' positions or movements, localizing multiple individuals simultaneously to study their interactions, determining animals' individual identities, quantifying sound amplitude or directionality, selecting subsets of sounds for further acoustic analysis, calculating species abundance, inferring territory boundaries or habitat use, and separating animal sounds from background noise to improve species classification. We find that the labor-intensive steps of processing recordings and estimating animal positions have not yet been automated. In the near future, we expect that increased availability of recording hardware, development of automated and open-source localization software, and improvement of automated sound classification algorithms will broaden the use of acoustic localization. With these three advances, ecologists will be better able to embrace acoustic localization, enabling low-disturbance, large-scale collection of animal position data.

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.

Specialized Feathers Produce Sonations During Flight in Columbina Ground Doves

The shape of remiges (primary and secondary feathers) is constrained and stereotyped by the demands of flight, but members of the subfamily of New World ground doves (Peristerinae) possess many atypical remex shapes with which they produce sonations of alarm. Within the genus Columbina specifically, the seventh primary feathers (P7) have elongated barbs that create a protrusion on the trailing vane which varies in size and shape between species. These feathers are hypothesized to have been coopted to produce communicative sounds (i.e., sonations) during flight, but the mechanism of this sound production is unknown. We tested the sound-producing capabilities of spread wing specimens from three species of ground doves (C. inca, C. passerina, and C. talpacoti) in a wind tunnel. High speed video and audio analyses indicated that all wings of adult birds produced buzzing sounds in the orientation and flow velocity of mid-upstroke. These buzzing sounds were produced as the protrusion of elongated barbs fluttered and collided with adjacent P6 feathers at a fundamental frequency of 200 and 400 Hz, respectively. Wings from juvenile C. inca produced significantly quieter buzzes and most (three of four individuals) lacked the elongated barbs that are present in adults. Buzzing sounds produced in the wind tunnel were similar to those produced by wild birds indicating that these P7 feathers have been coopted to produce acoustic signals (sonations) during flight. The shape and mechanism of sound production described here in Columbina appear to be unique among birds.