1. Evolutionary Biology

How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum and other animals in flapping flight

  1. Ben J Hightower
  2. Patrick W A Wijnings
  3. Rick Scholte
  4. Rivers Ingersoll
  5. Diana D Chin
  6. Jade Nguyen
  7. Daniel Shorr
  8. David Lentink  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University, United States
  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
  3. Sorama, Netherlands
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63107
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Ben J Hightower
  2. Patrick W A Wijnings
  3. Rick Scholte
  4. Rivers Ingersoll
  5. Diana D Chin
  6. Jade Nguyen
  7. Daniel Shorr
  8. David Lentink
(2021)
How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum and other animals in flapping flight
eLife 10:e63107.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63107
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

How hummingbirds hum is not fully understood, but its biophysical origin is encoded in the acoustic nearfield. Hence, we studied six freely hovering Anna's hummingbirds, performing acoustic nearfield holography using a 2176 microphone array in vivo, while also directly measuring the 3D aerodynamic forces using a new aerodynamic force platform. We corroborate the acoustic measurements by developing an idealized acoustic model that integrates the aerodynamic forces with wing kinematics, which shows how the timbre of the hummingbird's hum arises from the oscillating lift and drag forces on each wing. Comparing birds and insects, we find that the characteristic humming timbre and radiated power of their flapping wings originates from the higher harmonics in the aerodynamic forces that support their bodyweight. Our model analysis across insects and birds shows that allometric deviation makes larger birds quieter and elongated flies louder, while also clarifying complex bioacoustic behavior.

Data availability

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions presented in the paper are available on Dryad, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.73n5tb2vs.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ben J Hightower

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  2. Patrick W A Wijnings

    Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  3. Rick Scholte

    Engineering, Sorama, Eindhoven, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  4. Rivers Ingersoll

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7194-0911

  5. Diana D Chin

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Jade Nguyen

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  7. Daniel Shorr

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. David Lentink

    Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    dlentink@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    David Lentink, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4717-6815

Funding

National Science Foundation (Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award,1552419)

  • David Lentink

National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship)

  • Ben J Hightower

Stanford University (Stanford Graduate Fellowship)

  • Ben J Hightower

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Research Program ZERO (P15-06))

  • Patrick W A Wijnings

Stanford University (Stanford Graduate Fellowship)

  • Diana D Chin

National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (Graduate Fellowship)

  • Diana D Chin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All bird training and experimental procedures were approved by Stanford's Administrative Panel on Laboratory Animal Care (APLAC-31426).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gordon J Berman, Emory University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: September 15, 2020
  2. Accepted: February 28, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 16, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 19, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Hightower et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,121
    Page views
  • 324
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ben J Hightower
  2. Patrick W A Wijnings
  3. Rick Scholte
  4. Rivers Ingersoll
  5. Diana D Chin
  6. Jade Nguyen
  7. Daniel Shorr
  8. David Lentink
(2021)
How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum and other animals in flapping flight
eLife 10:e63107.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63107

Categories and tags

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology

    Bioacoustics: Characterizing the hum of hovering animals

    Robert Niese
    Insight

    The sounds of flying animals, such as the hum of a hummingbird as it hovers, are influenced by the unique forces generated by the flapping of their wings.

  2. Listen to David Lentnik explain how the Hummingbird got its hum.

    Podcast

    Specific aerodynamic forces created by its wings explain the hum of the Hummingbird

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology

    The deep-rooted origin of disulfide-rich spider venom toxins

    Naeem Yusuf Shaikh, Kartik Sunagar
    Research Article Updated

    Spider venoms are a complex concoction of enzymes, polyamines, inorganic salts, and disulfide-rich peptides (DRPs). Although DRPs are widely distributed and abundant, their bevolutionary origin has remained elusive. This knowledge gap stems from the extensive molecular divergence of DRPs and a lack of sequence and structural data from diverse lineages. By evaluating DRPs under a comprehensive phylogenetic, structural and evolutionary framework, we have not only identified 78 novel spider toxin superfamilies but also provided the first evidence for their common origin. We trace the origin of these toxin superfamilies to a primordial knot – which we name ‘Adi Shakti’, after the creator of the Universe according to Hindu mythology – 375 MYA in the common ancestor of Araneomorphae and Mygalomorphae. As the lineages under evaluation constitute nearly 60% of extant spiders, our findings provide fascinating insights into the early evolution and diversification of the spider venom arsenal. Reliance on a single molecular toxin scaffold by nearly all spiders is in complete contrast to most other venomous animals that have recruited into their venoms diverse toxins with independent origins. By comparatively evaluating the molecular evolutionary histories of araneomorph and mygalomorph spider venom toxins, we highlight their contrasting evolutionary diversification rates. Our results also suggest that venom deployment (e.g. prey capture or self-defense) influences evolutionary diversification of DRP toxin superfamilies.