spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online December 14, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 24-28 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.008219
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Almbro, M.
Right arrow Articles by Kullberg, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Almbro, M.
Right arrow Articles by Kullberg, C.

Impaired escape flight ability in butterflies due to low flight muscle ratio prior to hibernation

Maria Almbro* and Cecilia Kullberg

Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden


Figure 1
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Experimental setup. A butterfly was placed on a 0.2 m high perch (referred to as start in analyses, 1) in the centre of the room, just on the border of the area viewed by the two CCD Trackit cameras (2 and 3) connected to a computer for storage of coordinates. A model predator (a black cardboard box 0.15 m x 0.15 m x 0.20 m; 4), situated 2 m from the perch, was released by hand to simulate attacks, stopping 0.15 m from the perch. Butterfly take off was also recorded by a digital camera perpendicular to the take off (5). To ensure flight into the area viewed by the cameras, a spotlight was placed in the ceiling (6), illuminating the perch where the butterfly started. Only the flight area of the room was illuminated by fluorescent lamps in the ceiling (the area marked by 2 m x 4.7 m), the rest of the room being unlit.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Mean (±95% confidence interval) velocities at each of the six distances from the start of escape and control flights.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. Flight velocity 0.5 m from the start in relation to FMR of individual butterflies during (A) escape flights (N=27; P=0.014; r2=0.21, b=0.46) and (B) control flights (N=32, r2=0.03, P=0.352).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 4. Mean angle of ascent (±95% confidence interval) at each of the six distances from the start.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 5. Angle of ascent in relation to FMR at 0.1 m from the start (N=59, P=0.006, r2=0.126, b=–0.36).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 6. Mean sinuosity (±95% confidence interval) at the six distances from the start for escape and control flights.

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008