ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Postural Change of the Annual Cicada (
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cicadas are heavy fliers well known for their life cycles and sound production; however, their flight capabilities have not been extensively investigated. Here, we show for the first time that cicadas appropriate backward flight for additional maneuverability. We studied this flight mode using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations based on three-dimensional reconstructions of high-speed videos captured in a laboratory. Backward flight was characterized by steep body angles, high angles of attack, and high wing upstroke velocities. Wing motion occurred in an inclined stroke plane that was fixed relative to the body. Likewise, the directions of the half-stroke-averaged aerodynamic forces relative to the body (local frame) were constrained in a narrow range (<20°). Despite the drastic difference of approximately 90° in body posture between backward and forward flight in the global frame, the aerodynamic forces in both flight scenarios were maintained in a similar direction relative to the body. The forces relative to the body were also oriented in a similar direction when observed during climbs and turns, although the body orientation and motions were different. Hence, the steep posture appropriated during backward flight was primarily utilized for reorienting both the stroke plane and aerodynamic force in the global frame. A consequence of this reorientation was the reversal of aerodynamic functions of the half strokes in backward flight when compared to forward flight. The downstroke generated propulsive forces, while the upstroke generated vertical forces. For weight support, the upstroke, which typically generates lesser forces in forward flight, is aerodynamically active in backward flight. A leading-edge vortex (LEV) was observed on the forewings during both half strokes. The LEV's effect, together with the high upstroke velocity, increased the upstroke's force contribution from 10% of the net forces in forward flight to 50% in backward flight. The findings presented in this study have relevance to the design of micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs), as backward flight is an important characteristic for MAV maneuverability or for taking off from vertical surfaces.
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.