Literature DB >> 19282491

Bats go head-under-heels: the biomechanics of landing on a ceiling.

Daniel K Riskin1, Joseph W Bahlman, Tatjana Y Hubel, John M Ratcliffe, Thomas H Kunz, Sharon M Swartz.   

Abstract

Bats typically roost head-under-heels but they cannot hover in this position, thus, landing on a ceiling presents a biomechanical challenge. To land, a bat must perform an acrobatic flip that brings the claws of the toes in contact with the ceiling and do so gently enough as to avoid injury to its slender hindlimbs. In the present study, we sought to determine how bats land, to seek a link between landing kinematics and ceiling impact forces, and to determine whether landing strategies vary among bat species. To do this, we measured the kinematics and kinetics of landing behaviour in three species of bats as they landed on a force-measuring platform (Cynopterus brachyotis, N=3; Carollia perspicillata, N=5; Glossophaga soricina, N=5). Kinematics were similar for all bats within a species but differed among species. C. brachyotis performed four-point landings, during which body pitch increased until the ventral surface of the body faced the ceiling and the thumbs and hindlimbs simultaneously grasped the surface. Bats of the other two species performed two-point landings, whereby only the hindlimbs made contact with the ceiling. During these two-point landings, the hindlimbs were drawn up the side of the body to come in contact with the ceiling, causing simultaneous changes in body pitch, roll and yaw over the course of the landing sequence. Right-handed and left-handed forms of the two-point landing were observed, with individuals often switching back and forth between them among landing events. The four-point landing of C. brachyotis resulted in larger peak forces (3.7+/-2.4 body weights; median +/- interquartile range) than the two-point landings of C. perspicillata (0.8+/-0.6 body weights) or G. soricina (0.8+/-0.2 body weights). Our results demonstrate that the kinematics and kinetics of landing vary among bat species and that there is a correlation between the way a bat moves its body when it lands and the magnitude of peak impact force it experiences during that landing. We postulate that these interspecific differences in impact force could result because of stronger selective pressure for gentle landing in cave-roosting (C. perspicillata, G. soricina) versus foliage-roosting (C. brachyotis) species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19282491     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.026161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  9 in total

1.  Focal enhancement of the skeleton to exercise correlates with responsivity of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells rather than peak external forces.

Authors:  Ian J Wallace; Gabriel M Pagnotti; Jasper Rubin-Sigler; Matthew Naeher; Lynn E Copes; Stefan Judex; Clinton T Rubin; Brigitte Demes
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  No apparent ecological trend to the flight-initiating jump performance of five bat species.

Authors:  James D Gardiner; Robert L Nudds
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Accelerated landing in a stingless bee and its unexpected benefits for traffic congestion.

Authors:  Pierre Tichit; Isabel Alves-Dos-Santos; Marie Dacke; Emily Baird
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Touchdown to take-off: at the interface of flight and surface locomotion.

Authors:  William R T Roderick; Mark R Cutkosky; David Lentink
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 3.906

5.  Changes in kinematics and aerodynamics over a range of speeds in Tadarida brasiliensis, the Brazilian free-tailed bat.

Authors:  Tatjana Y Hubel; Nickolay I Hristov; Sharon M Swartz; Kenneth S Breuer
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Hindlimb motion during steady flight of the lesser dog-faced fruit bat, Cynopterus brachyotis.

Authors:  Jorn A Cheney; Daniel Ton; Nicolai Konow; Daniel K Riskin; Kenneth S Breuer; Sharon M Swartz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Microglial Morphology Across Distantly Related Species: Phylogenetic, Environmental and Age Influences on Microglia Reactivity and Surveillance States.

Authors:  Dario Carvalho-Paulo; João Bento Torres Neto; Carlos Santos Filho; Thais Cristina Galdino de Oliveira; Aline Andrade de Sousa; Renata Rodrigues Dos Reis; Zaire Alves Dos Santos; Camila Mendes de Lima; Marcus Augusto de Oliveira; Nivin Mazen Said; Sinara Franco Freitas; Marcia Consentino Kronka Sosthenes; Giovanni Freitas Gomes; Ediely Pereira Henrique; Patrick Douglas Côrrea Pereira; Lucas Silva de Siqueira; Mauro André Damasceno de Melo; Cristovam Guerreiro Diniz; Nara Gyzely de Morais Magalhães; José Antonio Picanço Diniz; Pedro Fernando da Costa Vasconcelos; Daniel Guerreiro Diniz; Daniel Clive Anthony; David Francis Sherry; Dora Brites; Cristovam Wanderley Picanço Diniz
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 7.561

8.  The evolution of bat vestibular systems in the face of potential antagonistic selection pressures for flight and echolocation.

Authors:  Kalina T J Davies; Paul J J Bates; Ibnu Maryanto; James A Cotton; Stephen J Rossiter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Falling with Style: Bats Perform Complex Aerial Rotations by Adjusting Wing Inertia.

Authors:  Attila J Bergou; Sharon M Swartz; Hamid Vejdani; Daniel K Riskin; Lauren Reimnitz; Gabriel Taubin; Kenneth S Breuer
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 8.029

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.