ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2026
Small insects actively respond to updrafts by modulating their wing and body kinematics.
Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Small insects utilize atmospheric flows to facilitate appetitive and migratory behaviors. In the convective and nocturnal boundary layers, these insects may experience high-speed updrafts which can present significant aerodynamic challenges. While it is known from field observations that small insects resist these updrafts, how they do so while maintaining flight stability is unknown. Here we investigate the flight behavior of two insect species, the 3-mm fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) and the 2-mm fungus gnat (Lycoriella ingenua), while exposed to quiescent air and to a steady 0.433 m s-1 upward flow within a vertical wind tunnel. We used high-speed 3D photogrammetry to capture flight trajectories and wing and body kinematics. Both species maintained a constant vertical flight velocity in quiescent conditions and in the updraft by maintaining a consistent beat frequency while significantly reducing their stroke amplitude (and thus saving energy), though with some size-specific differences. The smaller fungus gnats kept the dorsal portion of their stroke more so than the larger fruit flies, thereby maintaining the lift-generating clap-and-fling mechanism which is generally required at the lower Reynolds numbers at which they operate. Both species also maintained a similar relative flow velocity, which combines wing tangential velocity and animal velocity with respect to the free stream. Finally, the updraft somewhat affected flight stability in the fungus gnat (as seen in its more sinuous flight trajectories) but not in the fruit fly, which did not change the sinuosity of its trajectories in the updraft. These findings provide a bridge between large- and small-scale studies of small insects in the atmosphere.
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.