Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34847789›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2021

The evolution of two distinct strategies of moth flight.

Brett R Aiello, Usama Bin Sikandar, Hajime Minoguchi, Burhanuddin Bhinderwala, Chris A Hamilton, Akito Y Kawahara, Simon Sponberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neuroethology on the move with butterflies and moths.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The evolution of two distinct strategies of moth flight.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Brett R AielloSchool of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9034-0460
Usama Bin SikandarSchool of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3335-5994
Hajime MinoguchiSchool of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4040-489X
Burhanuddin BhinderwalaSchool of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Chris A HamiltonDepartment of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7263-0755
Akito Y KawaharaMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Simon SponbergSchool of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4942-4894

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across insects, wing shape and size have undergone dramatic divergence even in closely related sister groups. However, we do not know how morphology changes in tandem with kinematics to support body weight within available power and how the specific force production patterns are linked to differences in behaviour. Hawkmoths and wild silkmoths are diverse sister families with divergent wing morphology. Using three-dimensional kinematics and quasi-steady aerodynamic modelling, we compare the aerodynamics and the contributions of wing shape, size and kinematics in 10 moth species. We find that wing movement also diverges between the clades and underlies two distinct strategies for flight. Hawkmoths use wing kinematics, especially high frequencies, to enhance force and wing morphologies that reduce power. Silkmoths use wing morphology to enhance force, and slow, high-amplitude wingstrokes to reduce power. Both strategies converge on similar aerodynamic power and can support similar body weight ranges. However, inter-clade within-wingstroke force profiles are quite different and linked to the hovering flight of hawkmoths and the bobbing flight of silkmoths. These two moth groups fly more like other, distantly related insects than they do each other, demonstrating the diversity of flapping flight evolution and a rich bioinspired design space for robotic flappers.

Indexed as

MothsAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaFlight, AnimalHumansInsectaModels, BiologicalWings, Animalaerodynamicsflapping flightinsectmorphologymothwing

Identifiers

PMID34847789
PMCPMC8647679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.