4.5 Article

Drosophila melanogaster locomotion in cold thin air

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 209, Issue 2, Pages 364-371

Publisher

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.01999

Keywords

Drosophila melanogaster; high altitude; mountain; flight; walking speed; temperature; physiology; interaction; air density; air pressure; oxygen

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The alpine environment is likely to challenge insect locomotion because of low mean temperatures and reduced barometric pressure. In this study, we measured the direct and interactive effects of these factors on walking and flight performance of wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster Meigen. We found that decreased temperature and decreased air pressure both reduced walking speed and flight performance. Flies walked more slowly at 18 degrees C and in the lowest air pressure treatment (34 kPa). This treatment, equivalent in air pressure to the top of Mount Everest, was the only air pressure that significantly reduced fly walking speed. Therefore, walking performance in the wild is likely limited by temperature, but not oxygen availability. In contrast to walking performance, low but ecologically realistic air pressures dramatically reduced overall flight performance. The effects of reduced air pressure on flight performance were more pronounced at colder temperatures. Reduced flight performance in high altitude conditions was primarily driven by an increased reluctance for flies to initiate flight rather than outright failure to fly. Such reluctance to fly in high altitude conditions may in part explain the prevalence of aptery and brachyptery in high altitude insects. The observed interactive effects of temperature and air pressure on flight performance confirm the importance of simultaneously manipulating both of these factors when studying the impact of altitudinal conditions on insect physiology and behavior.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available