ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2016
Evolution of avian flight: muscles and constraints on performance.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Lessons from natural flight for aviation: then, now and tomorrow.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Review
- Evolution of Flight Muscle Contractility and Energetic Efficiency.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Review
- Article
- Innovation: an emerging focus from cells to societies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Moving in a moving medium: new perspectives on flight.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Competing hypotheses about evolutionary origins of flight are the 'fundamental wing-stroke' and 'directed aerial descent' hypotheses. Support for the fundamental wing-stroke hypothesis is that extant birds use flapping of their wings to climb even before they are able to fly; there are no reported examples of incrementally increasing use of wing movements in gliding transitioning to flapping. An open question is whether locomotor styles must evolve initially for efficiency or if they might instead arrive due to efficacy. The proximal muscles of the avian wing output work and power for flight, and new research is exploring functions of the distal muscles in relation to dynamic changes in wing shape. It will be useful to test the relative contributions of the muscles of the forearm compared with inertial and aerodynamic loading of the wing upon dynamic morphing. Body size has dramatic effects upon flight performance. New research has revealed that mass-specific muscle power declines with increasing body mass among species. This explains the constraints associated with being large. Hummingbirds are the only species that can sustain hovering. Their ability to generate force, work and power appears to be limited by time for activation and deactivation within their wingbeats of high frequency. Most small birds use flap-bounding flight, and this flight style may offer an energetic advantage over continuous flapping during fast flight or during flight into a headwind. The use of flap-bounding during slow flight remains enigmatic. Flap-bounding birds do not appear to be constrained to use their primary flight muscles in a fixed manner. To improve understanding of the functional significance of flap-bounding, the energetic costs and the relative use of alternative styles by a given species in nature merit study.This article is part of the themed issue 'Moving in a moving medium: new perspectives on flight'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.