Literature DB >> 9418032

Flight and size constraints: hovering performance of large hummingbirds under maximal loading.

P Chai1, D Millard.   

Abstract

As the smallest birds, hummingbirds are the only birds capable of prolonged hovering. This suggests that hovering locomotion scales unfavourably with size. Is the hovering performance of larger hummingbird species more constrained by size than that of smaller ones? Maximal load-lifting capacities of the two largest species of hummingbirds found in the United States, the blue-throated (Lampornis clemenciae, 8.4 g) and magnificent (Eugenes fulgens, 7.4 g) hummingbird, as well as the two other local small species, the black-chinned (Archilochus alexandri, 3.0 g) and rufus (Selasphorus rufus, 3.3 g) hummingbird, were determined under conditions of short-burst performance. The power reserves of hummingbirds are substantial relative to normal hovering performance. The two large species lifted maximal loads close to twice their body mass for a very brief duration of over 0.4 s. The small species lifted maximal loads approximately equal to their own mass with a longer duration of over 0.6 s. For the two large species under maximal loading, estimates of burst muscle mass-specific mechanical power output assuming perfect elastic energy storage averaged 309 W kg-1, compared with 75 W kg-1 during free hovering without loading. For the two small species, these values were 228 W kg-1 and 88 W kg-1, respectively. The differences in aerodynamic force production and power output between the large and small size classes occur despite their similar wing stroke velocity. This indicates that, during burst performance in these hummingbirds, the larger ones had a higher load-lifting capacity and generated more muscle power. In spite of the twofold difference in body mass, both large and small hummingbirds have evolved to become potent aerial competitors in order to exploit their common food resource, nectar. Both size classes have evolved to cope with the multi-dimensional effects of size constraining their aerodynamics, muscle mechanics, metabolism and ecology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9418032     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.200.21.2757

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


  21 in total

1.  Neuromuscular control of wingbeat kinematics in Anna's hummingbirds (Calypte anna).

Authors:  Douglas L Altshuler; Kenneth C Welch; Brian H Cho; Danny B Welch; Amy F Lin; William B Dickson; Michael H Dickinson
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  Wingbeat kinematics and energetics during weightlifting in hovering hummingbirds across an elevational gradient.

Authors:  Derrick J E Groom; M Cecilia B Toledo; Kenneth C Welch
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.200

3.  Resolution of a paradox: hummingbird flight at high elevation does not come without a cost.

Authors:  Douglas L Altshuler; Robert Dudley; Jimmy A McGuire
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Allometry of hummingbird lifting performance.

Authors:  D L Altshuler; R Dudley; S M Heredia; J A McGuire
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.312

5.  Molecules, muscles, and machines: universal performance characteristics of motors.

Authors:  James H Marden; Lee R Allen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-03-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Limitations of rotational manoeuvrability in insects and hummingbirds: evaluating the effects of neuro-biomechanical delays and muscle mechanical power.

Authors:  Pan Liu; Bo Cheng
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.118

7.  Scaling Bioinspired Mars Flight Vehicles for Hover.

Authors:  Jeremy A Pohly; Chang-Kwon Kang; Madhu K Sridhar; D Brian Landrum; Farbod Fahimi; Bryan Mesmer; James E Bluman; Hikaru Aono; Taeyoung Lee
Journal:  AIAA Atmos Flight Mech Conf 2019 (2019)       Date:  2019-01-06

8.  Wing flexibility enhances load-lifting capacity in bumblebees.

Authors:  Andrew M Mountcastle; Stacey A Combes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Energy expenditure during flight in relation to body mass: effects of natural increases in mass and artificial load in Rose Coloured Starlings.

Authors:  Carola A Schmidt-Wellenburg; Sophia Engel; G Henk Visser
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 2.200

10.  Kinematic plasticity during flight in fruit bats: individual variability in response to loading.

Authors:  Jose Iriarte-Diaz; Daniel K Riskin; Kenneth S Breuer; Sharon M Swartz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.