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

The Inverse Krogh Principle: All Organisms Are Worthy of Study

AbstractKrogh's principle states, "For such a large number of problems there will be some animal of choice, or a few such animals, on which it can be most conveniently studied." The downside of picking a question first and then finding an ideal organism on which to study it is that it will inevitably leave many organisms neglected. Here, we promote the inverse Krogh principle: all organisms are worthy of study. The inverse Krogh principle and the Krogh principle are not opposites. Rather, the inverse Krogh principle emphasizes a different starting point for research: start with a biological unit, such as an organism, clade, or specific organism trait, then seek or create tractable research questions. Even the hardest-to-study species have research questions that can be asked of them: Where does it fall within the tree of life? What resources does it need to survive and reproduce? How does it differ from close relatives? Does it have unique adaptations? The Krogh and inverse Krogh approaches are complementary, and many research programs naturally include both. Other considerations for picking a study species include extreme species, species informative for phylogenetic analyses, and the creation of models when a suitable species does not exist. The inverse Krogh principle also has pitfalls. A scientist that picks the organism first might choose a research question not really suited to the organism, and funding agencies rarely fund organism-centered grant proposals. The inverse Krogh principle does not call for all organisms to receive the same amount of research attention. As knowledge continues to accumulate, some organisms-models-will inevitably have more known about them than others. Rather, it urges a broader search across organismal diversity to find sources of inspiration for research questions and the motivation needed to pursue them.

Auditory sensory range of male mosquitoes for the detection of female flight sound

Male mosquitoes detect and localize conspecific females by their flight-tones using the Johnston's organ (JO), which detects antennal deflections under the influence of local particle motion. Acoustic behaviours of mosquitoes and their JO physiology have been investigated extensively within the frequency domain, yet the auditory sensory range and the behaviour of males at the initiation of phonotactic flights are not well known. In this study, we predict a maximum spatial sensory envelope for flying Culex quinquefasciatus by integrating the physiological tuning response of the male JO with female aeroacoustic signatures derived from numerical simulations. Our sensory envelope predictions were tested with a behavioural assay of free-flying males responding to a female-like artificial pure tone. The minimum detectable particle velocity observed during flight tests was in good agreement with our theoretical prediction formed by the peak JO sensitivity measured in previous studies. The iso-surface describing the minimal detectable particle velocity represents the quantitative auditory sensory range of males and is directional with respect to the female body orientation. Our results illuminate the intricacy of the mating behaviour and point to the importance of observing the body orientation of flying mosquitoes to understand fully the sensory ecology of conspecific communication.

Quiet flight, the leading edge comb, and their ecological correlates in owls (Strigiformes)

Owls have evolved sensitive hearing facilitated by a facial disc, and flight that is quieted in part by a leading-edge comb on their wing. This comb is a series of modified barbs, or serrations, which project up from the outermost primary feathers on the leading edge of the wing. Here we explore the evolution of comb and facial disc morphology. We measured leading-edge comb morphology on museum skins of 147 owl species, and facial disc morphology from photos, as well as ecological traits, on 66 species. The first principal component of comb morphology loaded on serration length, which varied between 0 and ~6 mm long in the species we sampled. Comb size (PC1) was correlated with relative facial disc size, suggesting that owls with good hearing also tend to have quiet flight. Two non-exclusive hypotheses for why quiet flight evolved are for stealth, allowing the owl to approach prey undetected; or to reduce self-masking, enabling the owl to hear prey better midflight. We examined whether ecological variables (prey type, active period and habitat) suggest whether stealth or self-masking better explain the evolution of comb size. Phylogenetic analyses suggested support for both the stealth and the self-masking hypotheses for the evolution of quiet flight.

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.