Back

Bumblebees actively compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually-guided landings

Goyal, P.; van Leeuwen, J. L.; Muijres, F. T.

2022-12-16 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2022.12.16.520721 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Flying animals often encounter winds during visually guided landings. However, how winds affect their flight control strategy during landing is unknown. Here, we investigated how sidewind affects the landing strategy, sensorimotor control, and landing performance of foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). For this, we trained a hive of bumblebees to forage in a wind tunnel, and used high-speed stereoscopic videography to record 19,421 landing flight maneuvers in six sidewind speeds (0 to 3.4 m s-1), which correspond to winds encountered in nature. Bumblebees landed less often in higher windspeeds, but the landing duration from free flight was not increased by wind. We then tested how bumblebees adjusted their landing control to compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind on landing. This showed that the landing strategy in sidewind was similar to that in still air, but with important adaptations. In the highest windspeeds, more hover phases occurred than during landings in still air. The rising hover frequency did not increase landing duration because bumblebees flew faster in between hover phases. Hence, they negated the adverse effects of increased hovering in high windspeeds. Using control theory, we revealed how bumblebees integrate information from the wind-mediated mechanosensory modality with their vision-based sensorimotor control loop. The proposed multi-sensory flight control system may be commonly used by insects landing in windy conditions and it may inspire the development of landing control strategies onboard man-made flying systems. Summary statementBumblebees foraging in strong sidewinds can still land precisely on artificial flowers, allowing them to be efficient and robust pollinators in these adverse environmental conditions.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
53.1%
50% of probability mass above
2
Integrative And Comparative Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
3
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
4
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
5
Journal of Comparative Physiology A
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 35%
2.1%
7
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
11
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
12
Animal Behaviour
65 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
13
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
14
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
17
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
18
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
20
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.7%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
23
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.5%
24
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%