Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42545743›Full record

ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2026

Small insects actively respond to updrafts by modulating their wing and body kinematics.

Evan J Williams, Ignazio Maria Viola, Laura Ross, Katy Monteith, Zhehong Zhang, Robert Baird, David W Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Evan J WilliamsDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
Ignazio Maria ViolaSchool of Engineering, Institute of Energy Systems, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK.
Laura RossSchool of Biological Sciences, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3184-4161
Katy MonteithSchool of Biological Sciences, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK.
Zhehong ZhangSchool of Engineering, Institute of Energy Systems, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK.
Robert BairdSchool of Biological Sciences, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7088-2190
David W MurphyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9852-4085

Funding

National Science Foundation #1846925National Science Foundation #2548593
6 · The paper itself

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

Drosophila melanogasterFlight, AnimalWings, AnimalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID42545743
PMCPMC13531471

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.