Bumblebees land rapidly by intermittently accelerating and decelerating toward the surface during visually guided landings

Goyal, Pulkit; Leeuwen, J.L. van; Muijres, Florian T.

doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104265

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To analyze the sensorimotor control response of bumblebees in different wind conditions, we used a second previously developed algorithm ( Goyal et al, 2022 ). This algorithm identifies the track segments that precede the constant- r segments and contain a monotonic variation (increase or decrease) of relative rate of expansion ( Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2E ). In still air, this monotonic variation of r is the transient response of the sensorimotor control system when converging to the optic expansion rate set-point ( Goyal et al, 2022 ). We refer to these segments as entry segments, and the corresponding flight responses as transient responses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our algorithms for extracting the constant- r segments and entry segments do not capture all the set-points or entry phases that bumblebees exhibit during landing. For details about the limitations of each algorithm, see Goyal et al (2021) and Goyal et al (2022) , respectively. We overcome these limitations by using thousands of landing maneuvers to describe the influence of winds on the landing dynamics of bumblebees.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result of these control actions, each flight bout consists of two phases ( Fig. 1B ) ( Goyal et al, 2022 ). During the so-called constant- r phase, the bumblebee flies approximately at the optic expansion rate set-point, as regulated using steady-state control responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This stepwise upregulation of the optic expansion set-points causes landing bumblebees to intermittently increase their approach flight speed during the entry segments, and decrease it during the constant- r flight phase ( Goyal et al, 2022 ). In addition to these accelerations and decelerations, bumblebees occasionally exhibit low-velocity phases, also described as hover phases ( de Vries et al, 2020 ; Goyal et al, 2021 ; Reber et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bumblebees compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually guided landings

Goyal,

van Leeuwen,

Muijres

2024

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flying animals often encounter winds during visually-guided landings. However, how winds affect their flight control strategy during landing is unknown. Here, we investigated how sidewind affects the landing performance and sensorimotor control of foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). We trained bumblebees to forage in a wind tunnel, and used high-speed stereoscopic videography to record 19,421 landing maneuvers in six sidewind speeds (0 to 3.4 m s−1), which correspond to winds encountered in nature. Bumblebees landed less often in higher windspeeds, but the landings durations from free flight were not increased by wind. By testing how bumblebees adjusted their landing control to compensate for adverse effects of sidewind on landing, we showed that the landing strategy in sidewind resembled that in still air, but with important adaptations. Bumblebees landing in a sidewind tended to drift downwind, which they controlled for by performing more hover maneuvers. Surprisingly, the increased hover prevalence did not increase the duration of free-flight landing maneuvers, as these bumblebees flew faster towards the landing platform outside the hover phases. Hence, by alternating these two flight modes along their flight path, free-flying bumblebees negated the adverse effects of high windspeeds on landing duration. Using control theory, we hypothesize that bumblebees achieve this by integrating a combination of direct aerodynamic feedback and a wind-mediated mechanosensory feedback control, with their vision-based sensorimotor control loop. The revealed landing strategy may be commonly used by insects landing in windy conditions, and may inspire the development of landing control strategies onboard autonomously flying robots.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bumblebees compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually guided landings

Goyal,

van Leeuwen,

Muijres

2024

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bumblebees actively compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually-guided landings

Goyal

Leeuwen

Muijres

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flying animals often encounter winds during visually guided landings. However, how winds affect their flight control strategy during landing is unknown. Here, we investigated how sidewind affects the landing strategy, sensorimotor control, and landing performance of foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). For this, we trained a hive of bumblebees to forage in a wind tunnel, and used high-speed stereoscopic videography to record 19,421 landing flight maneuvers in six sidewind speeds (0 to 3.4 m s−1), which correspond to winds encountered in nature. Bumblebees landed less often in higher windspeeds, but the landing duration from free flight was not increased by wind. We then tested how bumblebees adjusted their landing control to compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind on landing. This showed that the landing strategy in sidewind was similar to that in still air, but with important adaptations. In the highest windspeeds, more hover phases occurred than during landings in still air. The rising hover frequency did not increase landing duration because bumblebees flew faster in between hover phases. Hence, they negated the adverse effects of increased hovering in high windspeeds. Using control theory, we revealed how bumblebees integrate information from the wind-mediated mechanosensory modality with their vision-based sensorimotor control loop. The proposed multi-sensory flight control system may be commonly used by insects landing in windy conditions and it may inspire the development of landing control strategies onboard man-made flying systems.

show abstract

Pairwise interactions, feedback rule changes, and deliberative decisions underlie honeybee inflight group coordination

Islam,

Faruque

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic descriptions of the underlying interaction rules that insects use to support group and swarm flight has the potential to contribute to mathematics, biology, and robotics, including aerial swarming under sensory and computational limitations. This study analyzes 1,000 trajectories of flying honeybees in crowded conditions approaching a moving stimulus and finds how during this stimulus, honeybees coordinate flight through pairwise interactions involving a novel three-zone decision-making process. The experimental setup consists of 3-D position reconstructions via a high speed camera system recording honeybee foragers returning to a hive entrance actuated to move robotically. The analysis consists of neighborhood identification through three methods (cross-correlation, distance threshold, and average distance threshold), which reveals the dominant interaction is pairwise. The individual leader-follower pair interactions are then tested against three regulation candidates: optic flow, relative velocity, and optical expansion rate, based on minimizing root mean square error. The results show that each follower demonstrates a three stage process involving a feedback rule change, linked by an intermediate observation/decision phase. During the initial ``lock'' phase, an insect maintains a consistent optical expansion rate until inter-agent distance closes to 10 cm. The regulation candidates then undergo large variations during a relatively long observation/decision zone, with 1.04 seconds being the average time in the decision zone. 79% of the paired insect entries into the decision zone result in subsequent re-engagement to track the same initial leader, while 21% result in disengagement from the group behavior. Visual regulation candidate comparison in the third stage indicates that upon re-engagement, the follower relative velocity is regulated to provide consistent velocity matching between agents. The third stage's velocity tracking is consistent with a closed-loop feedback proportional-integral (PI) controller regulating velocity tracking error. Across the insect population studied, the proportional gain remained showed minimal variability over individuals, a derivative gain was considered and found negligible, and the integral gain varied by individual. Collectively, these findings underscore the existence of an alternative swarm architecture, highlighting individual decision-making capabilities, feedback regulation target changes, and the presence of reactive, deliberative, and moderate (PI control) timescale interaction rules contained within aerial groups.

show abstract

Bumblebees land rapidly by intermittently accelerating and decelerating toward the surface during visually guided landings

Cited by 5 publications

References 53 publications

Bumblebees compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually guided landings

Bumblebees compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually guided landings

Bumblebees actively compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually-guided landings

Pairwise interactions, feedback rule changes, and deliberative decisions underlie honeybee inflight group coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About