Coping with compliance during take-off and landing in the diamond dove (Geopelia cuneata)

Abstract

The natural world is filled with substrates of varying properties that challenge locomotor abilities. Birds appear to transition smoothly from aerial to terrestrial environments during take-offs and landings using substrates that are incredibly variable. It may be challenging to control movement on and off compliant (flexible) substrates such as twigs, yet birds routinely accomplish such tasks. Previous research suggests that birds do not use their legs to harness elastic recoil from perches. Given avian mastery of take-off and landing, we hypothesized that birds instead modulate wing, body and tail movements to effectively use compliant perches. We measured take-off and landing performance of diamond doves (Geopelia cuneata (N = 5) in the laboratory and perch selection in this species in the field (N = 25). Contrary to our hypothesis, doves do not control take-off and landing on compliant perches as effectively as they do on stiff perches. They do not recover elastic energy from the perch, and take-off velocities are thus negatively impacted. Landing velocities remain unchanged, which suggests they may not anticipate the need to compensate for compliance. Legs and wings function as independent units: legs produce lower initial velocities when taking off from a compliant substrate, which negatively impacts later flight velocities. During landing, significant stability problems arise with compliance that are ameliorated by the wings and tail. Collectively, we suggest that the diamond dove maintains a generalized take-off and landing behavior regardless of perch compliance, leading us to conclude that perch compliance represents a challenge for flying birds. Free-living diamond doves avoid the negative impacts of compliance by preferentially selecting perches of larger diameter, which tend to be stiffer.

Aquatic and terrestrial takeoffs require different hindlimb kinematics and muscle function in mallard ducks

“…Consequently, it is likely that mallards also face the challenge of modulating hindlimb movement and muscle function during takeoff depending on the takeoff medium, particularly because the hindlimb contributes to the first part of takeoff when the body is still in contact with the substrate. Previous work on terrestrial takeoff has examined takeoffs from solid surfaces by focusing on distal hindlimb kinematics and substrate reaction forces (Earls, 2000;Tobalske et al, 2004;Berg and Biewener, 2010;Provini et al, 2012b;Chin and Lentink, 2017;Crandell et al, 2018) or wing musculature (Williamson et al, 2001). Others have considered avian behaviors at the water's surface, including paddle-assisted flight (Norberg and Norberg, 1971;Gough et al, 2015), mating displays (Clifton et al, 2015), hydroplaning (Aigeldinger and Fish, 1995) and steaming (Gough et al, 2015).…”

“…Depending on the species, the hindlimbs are responsible for 59-100% of the body's velocity at the time of toe-off (Earls, 2000;Tobalske et al, 2004;Berg and Biewener, 2010;Provini et al, 2012b;Chin and Lentink, 2017), with the remainder made up by an active upstroke or rotations of the body (Provini et al, 2012b). Because birds take off from a variety of substrates, takeoff performance may be compromised if behaviors are not adjusted to substrate properties (Crandell et al, 2018). Substrate compliance can affect jumping kinematics, with more compliant substrates linked to lower takeoff velocities and larger joint excursions (Giatsis et al, 2004;Astley et al, 2015;Crandell et al, 2018).…”

“…Because birds take off from a variety of substrates, takeoff performance may be compromised if behaviors are not adjusted to substrate properties (Crandell et al, 2018). Substrate compliance can affect jumping kinematics, with more compliant substrates linked to lower takeoff velocities and larger joint excursions (Giatsis et al, 2004;Astley et al, 2015;Crandell et al, 2018). Waterfowl face perhaps the most disparate tasks of taking off from both terrestrial and aquatic environments.…”

Accidents alter animal fitness landscapes

“…Balancing on a compliant surface may cause d h (as defined above) to increase without the animal moving at all and might therefore increase the risk of unbalanced rolling or pitching, depending on the direction of the initial force applied to the surface. For example, diamond doves (Geopelia cuneate) landing on compliant perches experience extended instability and pitching (as the perch moves in response to the dove landing) that must be corrected using wing and tail movements to avoid falling (Crandell et al 2018). However, if the initial force is exerted directly downwards, the resulting surface movement may not increase rolling or pitching.…”

Effect of Substrates' Compliance on the Jumping Mechanism of Locusta migratoria

“…Similar situations happen in doves Geopelia cuneate : their takeoff velocity is negatively impacted by higher levels of substrates' compliance, while their landing velocity is less impacted and landing stability problems are properly managed by wings and tail. In addition, free-living doves avoid the negative impacts of compliance by selecting stiffer perches (Crandell et al, 2018 ).…”