Changes in wing morphology rather than wingbeat kinematics enabled evolutionary miniaturization of hoverflies

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In "Changes in wing morphology..." Roy et al investigate the potential allometric scaling in wing morphology and wing kinematics in 8 different hoverfly species. Their study nicely combines different new and classic techniques, investigating flight in an important, yet understudied alternative pollinator. I want to emphasize that I have been asked to review this from a hoverfly biology perspective, as I do not work on flight kinematics. I will thus not review that part of the work.

Strengths:

The paper is well-written and the figures are well laid out. The methods are easy to follow, and the rationale and logic for each experiment are easy to follow. The introduction sets the scene well, and the discussion is appropriate. The summary sentences throughout the text help the reader.

Weaknesses:

The ability to hover is described as useful for either feeding or mating. However, several of the North European species studied here would not use hovering for feeding, as they tend to land on the flowers that they feed from. I would therefore argue that the main selection pressure for hovering ability could be courtship and mating. If the authors disagree with this, they could back up their claims with the literature. On that note, a weakness of this paper is that the data for both sexes are merged. If we agree that hovering may be a sexually dimorphic behaviour, then merging flight dynamics from males and females could be an issue in the interpretation. I understand that separating males from females in the movies is difficult, but this could be addressed in the Discussion, to explain why you do not (or do) think that this could cause an issue in the interpretation.

The flight arena is not very big. In my experience, it is very difficult to get hoverflies to fly properly in smaller spaces, and definitely almost impossible to get proper hovering. Do you have evidence that they were flying "normally" and not just bouncing between the walls? How long was each 'flight sequence'? You selected the parts with the slowest flight speed, presumably to get as close to hovering as possible, but how sure are you that this represented proper hovering and not a brief slowdown of thrust?

Your 8 species are evolutionarily well-spaced, but as they were all selected from a similar habitat (your campus), their ecology is presumably very similar. Can this affect your interpretation of your data? I don't think all 6000 species of hoverflies could be said to have similar ecology - they live across too many different habitats. For example, on line 541 you say that wingbeat kinematics were stable across hoverfly species. Could this be caused by their similar habitat?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary

Le Roy et al quantify wing morphology and wing kinematics across eight hoverfly species that differ in body mass; the aim is to identify how weight support during hovering is ensured. Wing shape and relative wing size vary significantly with body mass, but wing kinematics are reported to be size-invariant. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that weight support is achieved solely through size-specific variations in wing morphology and that these changes enabled hoverflies to decrease in size throughout their phylogenetic history. Adjusting wing morphology may be preferable compared to the alternative strategy of altering wing kinematics, because kinematics may be under strong evolutionary and ecological constraints, dictated by the highly specialised flight and ecology of the hoverflies.

Strengths

The study deploys a vast array of challenging techniques, including flight experiments, morphometrics, phylogenetic analysis, and numerical simulations; it so illustrates both the power and beauty of an integrative approach to animal biomechanics. The question is well motivated, the methods appropriately designed, and the discussion elegantly and convincingly places the results in broad biomechanical, ecological, evolutionary, and comparative contexts.

Weaknesses

(1) In assessing evolutionary allometry, it is key to identify the variation expected from changes in size alone. The null hypothesis for wing morphology is well-defined (isometry), but the equivalent predictions for kinematic parameters remain unclear. Explicit and well-justified null hypotheses for the expected size-specific variation in angular velocity, angle-of-attack, stroke amplitude, and wingbeat frequency would substantially strengthen the paper, and clarify its evolutionary implications.

(2) By relating the aerodynamic output force to wing morphology and kinematics, it is concluded that smaller hoverflies will find it more challenging to support their body mass - a scaling argument that provides the framework for this work. This hypothesis appears to stand in direct contrast to classic scaling theory, where the gravitational force is thought to present a bigger challenge for larger animals, due to their disadvantageous surface-to-volume ratios. The same problem ought to occur in hoverflies, for wing kinematics must ultimately be the result of the energy injected by the flight engine: muscle. Much like in terrestrial animals, equivalent weight support in flying animals thus requires a positive allometry of muscle force output. In other words, if a large hoverfly is able to generate the wing kinematics that suffice to support body weight, an isometrically smaller hoverfly should be, too (but not vice versa). Clarifying the relation between the scaling of muscle force input, wing kinematics, and weight support would resolve the conflict between these two contrasting hypotheses, and considerably strengthen the biomechanical motivation and interpretation.

(3) The main conclusion - that evolutionary miniaturization is enabled by changes in wing morphology - is only weakly supported by the evidence. First, although wing morphology deviates from the null hypothesis of isometry, the difference is small, and hoverflies about an order of magnitude lighter than the smallest species included in the study exist. Including morphological data on these species, likely accessible through museum collections, would substantially enhance the confidence that size-specific variation in wing morphology occurs not only within medium-sized but also in the smallest hoverflies, and has thus indeed played a key role in evolutionary miniaturization. Second, although wing kinematics do not vary significantly with size, clear trends are visible; indeed, the numerical simulations revealed that weight support is only achieved if variations in wing beat frequency across species are included. A more critical discussion of both observations may render the main conclusions less clear-cut, but would provide a more balanced representation of the experimental and computational results.

In many ways, this work provides a blueprint for work in evolutionary biomechanics; the breadth of both the methods and the discussion reflects outstanding scholarship. It also illustrates a key difficulty for the field: comparative data is challenging and time-consuming to procure, and behavioural parameters are characteristically noisy. Major methodological advances are needed to obtain data across large numbers of species that vary drastically in size with reasonable effort, so that statistically robust conclusions are possible.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The paper by Le Roy and colleagues seeks to ask whether wing morphology or wing kinematics enable miniaturization in an interesting clade of agile flying insects. Isometry argues that insects cannot maintain both the same kinematics and the same wing morphology as body size changes. This raises a long-standing question of which varies allometrically. The authors do a deep dive into the morphology and kinematics of eight specific species across the hoverfly phylogeny. They show broadly that wing kinematics do not scale strongly with body size, but several parameters of wing morphology do in a manner different from isometry leading to the conclusion that these species have changed wing shape and size more than kinematics. The authors find no phylogenetic signal in the specific traits they analyze and conclude that they can therefore ignore phylogeny in the later analyses. They use both a quasi-steady simplification of flight aerodynamics and a series of CFD analyses to attribute specific components of wing shape and size to the variation in body size observed. However, the link to specific correlated evolution, and especially the suggestion of enabling or promoting miniaturization, is fraught and not as strongly supported by the available evidence.

The aerodynamic and morphological data collection, modeling, and interpretation are very strong. The authors do an excellent job combining a highly interpretable quasi-steady model with CFD and geometric morphometrics. This allows them to directly parse out the effects of size, shape, and kinematics.

Despite the lack of a relationship between wing kinematics and size, there is a large amount of kinematic variation across the species and individual wing strokes. The absolute differences in Figure 3F - I could have a very large impact on force production but they do indeed not seem to change with body size. This is quite interesting and is supported by aerodynamic analyses.

The authors switch between analyzing their data based on individuals and based on species. This creates some pseudoreplication concerns in Figures 4 and S2 and it is confusing why the analysis approach is not consistent between Figures 4 and 5. In general, the trends appear to be robust to this, although the presence of one much larger species weighs the regressions heavily. Care should be taken in interpreting the statistical results that mix intra- and inter-specific variation in the same trend.

The authors based much of their analyses on the lack of a statistically significant phylogenetic signal. The statistical power for detecting such a signal is likely very weak with 8 species. Even if there is no phylogenetic signal in specific traits, that does not necessarily mean that there is no phylogenetic impact on the covariation between traits. Many comparative methods can test the association of two traits across a phylogeny (e.g. a phylogenetic GLM) and a phylogenetic PCA would test if the patterns of variation in shape are robust to phylogeny.

The analysis of miniaturization on the broader phylogeny is incomplete. The conclusion that hoverflies tend towards smaller sizes is based on an ancestral state reconstruction. This is difficult to assess because of some important missing information. Specifically, such reconstructions depend on branch lengths and the model of evolution used, which were not specified. It was unclear how the tree was time-calibrated. Most often ancestral state reconstructions utilize a maximum likelihood estimate based on a Brownian motion model of evolution but this would be at odds with the hypothesis that the clade is miniaturizing over time. Indeed such an analysis will be biased to look like it produces a lot of changes towards smaller body size if there is one very large taxa because this will heavily weight the internal nodes. Even within this analysis, there is little quantitative support for the conclusion of miniaturization, and the discussion is restricted to a general statement about more recently diverged species. Such analyses are better supported by phylogenetic tests of directedness in the trait over time, such as fitting a model with an adaptive peak or others.

Setting aside whether the clade as a whole tends towards smaller size, there is a further concern about the correlation of variation in wing morphology and changes in size (and the corresponding conclusion about lack of co-evolution in wing kinematics). Showing that there is a trend towards smaller size and a change in wing morphology does not test explicitly that these two are correlated with the phylogeny. Moreover, the subsample of species considered does not appear to recapitulate the miniaturization result of the larger ancestral state reconstruction.

Given the limitations of the phylogenetic comparative methods presented, the authors did not fully support the general conclusion that changes in wing morphology, rather than kinematics, correlate with or enable miniaturization. The aerodynamic analysis across the 8 species does however hold significant value and the data support the conclusion as far as it extends to these 8 species. This is suggestive but not conclusive that the analysis of consistent kinematics and allometric morphology will extend across the group and extend to miniaturization. Nonetheless, hoverflies face many shared ecological pressures on performance and the authors summarize these well. The conclusions of morphological allometry and conserved kinematics are supported in this subset and point to a clade-wide pattern without having to support an explicit hypothesis about miniaturization.

The data and analyses on these 8 species provide an important piece of work on a group of insects that are receiving growing attention for their interesting behaviors, accessibility, and ecologies. The conclusions about morphology vs. kinematics provide an important piece to a growing discussion of the different ways in which insects fly. Sometimes morphology varies, and sometimes kinematics depending on the clade, but it is clear that morphology plays a large role in this group. The discussion also relates to similar themes being investigated in other flying organisms. Given the limitations of the miniaturization analyses, the impact of this study will be limited to the general question of what promotes or at least correlates with evolutionary trends towards smaller body size and at what phylogenetic scale body size is systematically decreasing.

In general, there is an important place for work that combines broad phylogenetic comparison of traits with more detailed mechanistic studies on a subset of species, but a lot of care has to be taken about how the conclusions generalize. In this case, since the miniaturization trend does not extend to the 8 species subsample of the phylogeny and is only minimally supported in the broader phylogeny, the paper warrants a narrower conclusion about the connection between conserved kinematics and shared life history/ecology.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers for their highly valuable comments and recommendations on our manuscript. We particularly appreciate receiving reviews from three distinct points of view, all highly relevant to our study (i.e. from an ecological, biomechanics, and evolutionary biology perspective).

We will now carefully address all reviewer comments and questions, and resubmit a revised version in due time. Again, we thank the reviewers for their rigorous assessment of our study, which will greatly help us improving our manuscript.