Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Oxygen consumption of bumblebees in forward flight

Abstract

AERODYNAMIC theories predict that the mechanical power required for flapping animal flight varies with flight speed according to a 'U-shaped' curve1–6. At some intermediate speed there is a pronounced power minimum, typically half the power required for hovering flight. These theories are widely used for birds and bats, but the predictions are not well supported by measurements of the rate of energy expenditure, or metabolic rate—usually determined from the rate of oxygen consumption—of animals flying in wind tunnels. This rate follows a distinctly U-shaped curve in a few species, but quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions is nevertheless unsatisfactory7–9. In other species either the curve is much flattened or the rate shows no significant change with flight speed10–13. In one case the agreement between theory and experiment is remarkable over the limited speed range under test6,14, but there is a discrepancy in the shapes of the two curves which would lead to large differences outside that speed range. Hummingbirds show no significant difference in their flight metabolism over speeds from hovering up to 7 m s−1 (ref. 15). At even higher speeds the metabolic rate increases, presumably as a result of the increased power needed to overcome body drag. The theories can also be applied to insects, but there are no equivalent data against which they can be tested. Here we report such measurements for bumblebees in free, controlled, forward flight over a speed range of 0–4 m s−1. The metabolic rate does not vary significantly with flight speed, suggesting that the theories are inadequate for insect flight.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pennycuick, C. J. Ibis. 111, 525–556 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tucker, V. A. J. exp. Biol. 58, 689–709 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pennycuick, C. J. in Avian Biology (eds Farner, D. S. & King, J. R.) Vol. 5, 1–75 (Academic, London, 1975).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Greenewalt, C. H. Trans. Am. phil. Soc. 65(4), 1–67 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rayner, J. M. V. J. exp. Biol. 80, 17–54 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pennycuick, C. J. Bird Flight Performance. A Practical Calculation Manual (University Press, Oxford, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tucker, V. A. J. exp. Biol. 48, 67–87 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas, S. P. J. exp. Biol. 63, 273–293 (1975).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carpenter, R. E. J. exp. Biol. 114, 619–647 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tucker, V. A. Am. J. Physiol. 222, 237–245 (1972).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernstein, M. H., Thomas, S. P. & Schmidt Neilsen, K. J. exp. Biol. 58, 401–410 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torre-Bueno, J. R. & LaRochelle, J. J. exp. Biol. 75, 223–229 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hudson, D. M. & Bernstein, M. H. J. exp. Biol. 103, 121–130 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothe, H.-J., Biesel, W. & Nachtigall, W. J. comp. Physiol. B 157, 99–109 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berger, M. in BIONA Report 3 (ed. Nachtigall, W.) 307–314 (G. Fisher, Mainz, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kammer, A. E. & Heinrich, B. Adv. Insect Physiol. 13, 133–228 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nachtigall, W., Rothe, U., Feller, P. & Jungmann, R. J. comp. Physiol. B 158, 729–737 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Armstrong, G. & Mordue, W. Physiol. Ent. 10, 353–358 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Demoll, R. Der Flug der Insekten und der Vögel (Fischer, Jena, 1918).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dudley, R. & Ellington, C. P. J. exp. Biol. 148, 53–88 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Berger, M. & Hart, J. S. J. comp. Physiol. 81, 363–380 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Berger, M. J. Orn., Lpz. 115, 273–288 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Casey, T. M. in Insect Flight (eds Goldsworthy, G. & Wheeler, C.) 257–272 (CRC, Boca Raton, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heinrich, B. J. comp. Physiol. 96, 155–166 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolf, Th. J., Schmid-Hempel, P., Ellington, C. P. & Stevenson, R. D. Funct. Ecol. 3, 417–424 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ellington, C., Machin, K. & Casey, T. Oxygen consumption of bumblebees in forward flight. Nature 347, 472–473 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/347472a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/347472a0

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing