Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30263957›Full record

ArticleScience advances2018

Biomechanics of hover performance in Neotropical hummingbirds versus bats.

Rivers Ingersoll, Lukas Haizmann, David Lentink

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Kinematics and aerodynamics of in-flight drinking in bats.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The spatiotemporal richness of hummingbird wing deformations.The Journal of experimental biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rivers IngersollDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-0911
Lukas HaizmannDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7814-2824
David LentinkDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4717-6815
Stanford University · USHochschule Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hummingbirds and nectar bats are the only vertebrates that are specialized for hovering in front of flowers to forage nectar. How their aerodynamic performance compares is, however, unclear. To hover, hummingbirds consistently generate about a quarter of the vertical aerodynamic force required to support their body weight during the upstroke. In contrast, generalist birds in slow hovering flight generate little upstroke weight support. We report that nectar bats also generate elevated weight support during the upstroke compared to generalist bats. Comparing 20 Neotropical species, we show how nectarivorous birds and bats converged on this ability by inverting their respective feathered and membrane wings more than species with other diets. However, while hummingbirds converged on an efficient horizontal wingbeat to mostly generate lift, bats rely on lift and drag during the downstroke to fully support their body weight. Furthermore, whereas the ability of nectar bats to aerodynamically support their body weight during the upstroke is elevated, it is much smaller than that of hummingbirds. Bats compensate by generating more aerodynamic weight support during their extended downstroke. Although, in principle, it requires more aerodynamic power to hover using this method, bats have adapted by evolving much larger wings for their body weight. Therefore, the net aerodynamic induced power required to hover is similar among hummingbirds and bats per unit body mass. This mechanistic insight into how feathered wings and membrane wings ultimately require similar aerodynamic power to hover may inform analogous design trade-offs in aerial robots.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBirdsBody WeightChiropteraFlight, AnimalFlowersWings, Animal

Identifiers

PMID30263957
PMCPMC6157961
OpenAlexW2892638594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.