FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019907919> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019907919 endingPage "789" @default.
• W2019907919 startingPage "786" @default.
• W2019907919 abstract "•Wingless mantises jump precisely to distant targets by juggling angular momentum•At takeoff, they generate controlled whole-body spin by adjusting their COM•Once airborne, they then adjust this spin by rotating three different body parts•Restricting these body rotations results in crash landings or missing the target Flightless animals have evolved diverse mechanisms to control their movements in air, whether falling with gravity or propelling against it. Many insects jump as a primary mode of locomotion and must therefore precisely control the large torques generated during takeoff. For example, to minimize spin (angular momentum of the body) at takeoff, plant-sucking bugs apply large equal and opposite torques from two propulsive legs [1Sutton G.P. Burrows M. The mechanics of azimuth control in jumping by froghopper insects.J. Exp. Biol. 2010; 213: 1406-1416Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. Interacting gear wheels have evolved in some to give precise synchronization of these legs [2Burrows M. Bräunig P. Actions of motor neurons and leg muscles in jumping by planthopper insects (hemiptera, issidae).J. Comp. Neurol. 2010; 518: 1349-1369PubMed Google Scholar, 3Burrows M. Sutton G. Interacting gears synchronize propulsive leg movements in a jumping insect.Science. 2013; 341: 1254-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar]. Once airborne, as a result of either jumping or falling, further adjustments may be needed to control trajectory and orient the body for landing. Tails are used by geckos to control pitch [4Libby T. Moore T.Y. Chang-Siu E. Li D. Cohen D.J. Jusufi A. Full R.J. Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs.Nature. 2012; 481: 181-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (219) Google Scholar, 5Jusufi A. Goldman D.I. Revzen S. Full R.J. Active tails enhance arboreal acrobatics in geckos.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105: 4215-4219Crossref PubMed Scopus (176) Google Scholar] and by Anolis lizards to alter direction [6Gillis G.B. Bonvini L.A. Irschick D.J. Losing stability: tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis.J. Exp. Biol. 2009; 212: 604-609Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar, 7Higham T.E. Davenport M.S. Jayne B.C. Maneuvering in an arboreal habitat: the effects of turning angle on the locomotion of three sympatric ecomorphs of Anolis lizards.J. Exp. Biol. 2001; 204: 4141-4155Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. When falling, cats rotate their body [8Diamond J.M. Why cats have nine lives.Nature. 1988; 332: 586-587Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar], while aphids [9Ribak G. Gish M. Weihs D. Inbar M. Adaptive aerial righting during the escape dropping of wingless pea aphids.Curr. Biol. 2013; 23: R102-R103Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar] and ants [10Yanoviak S.P. Dudley R. Kaspari M. Directed aerial descent in canopy ants.Nature. 2005; 433: 624-626Crossref PubMed Scopus (114) Google Scholar, 11Yanoviak S.P. Munk Y. Kaspari M. Dudley R. Aerial manoeuvrability in wingless gliding ants (Cephalotes atratus).Proc. Biol. Sci. 2010; 277: 2199-2204Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar] manipulate wind resistance against their legs and thorax. Falling is always downward, but targeted jumping must achieve many possible desired trajectories. We show that when making targeted jumps, juvenile wingless mantises first rotated their abdomen about the thorax to adjust the center of mass and thus regulate spin at takeoff. Once airborne, they then smoothly and sequentially transferred angular momentum in four stages between the jointed abdomen, the two raptorial front legs, and the two propulsive hind legs to produce a controlled jump with a precise landing. Experimentally impairing abdominal movements reduced the overall rotation so that the mantis either failed to grasp the target or crashed into it head first. Flightless animals have evolved diverse mechanisms to control their movements in air, whether falling with gravity or propelling against it. Many insects jump as a primary mode of locomotion and must therefore precisely control the large torques generated during takeoff. For example, to minimize spin (angular momentum of the body) at takeoff, plant-sucking bugs apply large equal and opposite torques from two propulsive legs [1Sutton G.P. Burrows M. The mechanics of azimuth control in jumping by froghopper insects.J. Exp. Biol. 2010; 213: 1406-1416Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. Interacting gear wheels have evolved in some to give precise synchronization of these legs [2Burrows M. Bräunig P. Actions of motor neurons and leg muscles in jumping by planthopper insects (hemiptera, issidae).J. Comp. Neurol. 2010; 518: 1349-1369PubMed Google Scholar, 3Burrows M. Sutton G. Interacting gears synchronize propulsive leg movements in a jumping insect.Science. 2013; 341: 1254-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar]. Once airborne, as a result of either jumping or falling, further adjustments may be needed to control trajectory and orient the body for landing. Tails are used by geckos to control pitch [4Libby T. Moore T.Y. Chang-Siu E. Li D. Cohen D.J. Jusufi A. Full R.J. Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs.Nature. 2012; 481: 181-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (219) Google Scholar, 5Jusufi A. Goldman D.I. Revzen S. Full R.J. Active tails enhance arboreal acrobatics in geckos.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105: 4215-4219Crossref PubMed Scopus (176) Google Scholar] and by Anolis lizards to alter direction [6Gillis G.B. Bonvini L.A. Irschick D.J. Losing stability: tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis.J. Exp. Biol. 2009; 212: 604-609Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar, 7Higham T.E. Davenport M.S. Jayne B.C. Maneuvering in an arboreal habitat: the effects of turning angle on the locomotion of three sympatric ecomorphs of Anolis lizards.J. Exp. Biol. 2001; 204: 4141-4155Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. When falling, cats rotate their body [8Diamond J.M. Why cats have nine lives.Nature. 1988; 332: 586-587Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar], while aphids [9Ribak G. Gish M. Weihs D. Inbar M. Adaptive aerial righting during the escape dropping of wingless pea aphids.Curr. Biol. 2013; 23: R102-R103Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar] and ants [10Yanoviak S.P. Dudley R. Kaspari M. Directed aerial descent in canopy ants.Nature. 2005; 433: 624-626Crossref PubMed Scopus (114) Google Scholar, 11Yanoviak S.P. Munk Y. Kaspari M. Dudley R. Aerial manoeuvrability in wingless gliding ants (Cephalotes atratus).Proc. Biol. Sci. 2010; 277: 2199-2204Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar] manipulate wind resistance against their legs and thorax. Falling is always downward, but targeted jumping must achieve many possible desired trajectories. We show that when making targeted jumps, juvenile wingless mantises first rotated their abdomen about the thorax to adjust the center of mass and thus regulate spin at takeoff. Once airborne, they then smoothly and sequentially transferred angular momentum in four stages between the jointed abdomen, the two raptorial front legs, and the two propulsive hind legs to produce a controlled jump with a precise landing. Experimentally impairing abdominal movements reduced the overall rotation so that the mantis either failed to grasp the target or crashed into it head first. We analyzed videos of 381 targeted jumps performed by 58 juveniles of all larval stages of the mantis, Stagmomantis theophila. The target was a vertical, 4-mm diameter black rod placed against a white background at distances of 1–2 body lengths from the edge of a platform on which the mantis stood (Figure 1A; Movie S1). Juvenile stages superficially resemble adults, but because they do not have wings, they rely on targeted jumping to navigate between the twigs and leaves of their heterogeneous arboreal environment. The morphometrics of fifth, sixth, and seventh instar mantises and their jumping performance were analyzed (Table 1). The form of the jump and the takeoff velocities were similar for each instar despite the 4-fold differences in mass. The following analysis focused on the sixth instar (three jumps by each of six individuals).Table 1Jumping Parameters for Three Jumps by Each of Six Fifth, Six Sixth, and Six Seventh Instar Mantises Expressed as Mean of Means ± SEMMass (mg)Body Length (mm)Front Leg Length (mm)Middle Leg Length (mm)Hind Leg Length (mm)Takeoff Time (ms)Body Angle at Takeoff (°)Takeoff Angle (°)Takeoff Velocity (m s−1)Fifth instar85.7 ± 6.930.5 ± 0.520.7 ± 0.615.7 ± 0.522.5 ± 0.530.0 ± 1.651.9 ± 2.145.6 ± 2.50.8 ± 0.1Sixth instar172.1 ± 17.439.7 ± 1.627.8 ± 1.320.8 ± 0.728.6 ± 1.633.8 ± 1.141.1 ± 1.538.0 ± 2.41.0 ± 0.1Seventh instar355.6 ± 35.644.4 ± 0.530.2 ± 0.821.1 ± 2.429.9 ± 1.437.7 ± 1.745.3 ± 2.838.2 ± 3.31.0 ± 0.1 Open table in a new tab The first movements in preparation for a targeted jump were a sideways swaying of the head to scan the target and apparently determine its distance [12Horridge G.A. A theory of insect vision: velocity parallax.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1986; 229: 13-27Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar, 13Walcher F. Kral K. Visual deprivation and distance estimation in the praying mantis larva.Physiol. Entomol. 2008; 19: 230-240Crossref Scopus (28) Google Scholar]. The body then rocked backward, and the abdomen curled upward so that its tip pointed forward (Figure 1B). Propulsive forces were generated by depression of the proximal segments (trochantera and the closely linked femora) and extension of the more distal tibiae of the middle and hind legs. Thrust continued until both pairs of these legs were outstretched at takeoff. During this acceleration phase, which lasted for 33.8 ± 1.1 ms (mean of means), the abdomen was curled forward and upward, and the front legs were off the ground and were progressively rotated anticlockwise about the trunk to project in front of the body (Figure 1B; Supplemental Information; Movie S1). During these propulsive movements, the center of mass (COM) of the whole mantis (calculated from the sum of the COMs of individual body parts; see Supplemental Information) stayed on the longitudinal body axis (Figure 1C). Takeoff occurred at a velocity of 1.0 ± 0.1 m s−1 (mean of means). The force from the legs was applied below the COM, resulting in an anticlockwise whole-body spin that set the appropriate body angle for a precise landing on the target. To test that control of this directed takeoff was attributable to rotational movements of the front legs and abdomen about the trunk, we constructed a model based on the detailed data of a single natural jump by a sixth instar mantis. The COM was followed under three conditions: (1) natural jumps, (2) simulated jumps with the abdomen fixed in its starting position, and (3) simulated jumps with the front legs fixed in their starting positions. In these two simulations, other body parts were allowed to move in the same trajectory as recorded in the videos of natural jumping (Figure 1C). In the model, if movement of the abdomen was excluded, the COM fell ventrally from the longitudinal axis of the thorax and moved closer to the line of action of the propulsive legs, thus reducing the total spin of the body and altering its angle relative to the target. By contrast, excluding movements of the front legs in the second simulation did not shift the COM from the body. Once airborne toward a target that was 1.5–2 body lengths distant, the sequence of leg and abdominal movements was the same from mantis to mantis. The COM moved around, but this had little effect on the trajectory because gravity always acts downward through the COM and thus generates no torque. The abdomen, front legs and hind legs performed a series of clockwise and anticlockwise rotations during which they exchanged angular momentum at different times and in different combinations. By contrast, the trunk underwent much smaller changes in its angular momentum, which were just sufficient to ensure that the mantis was oriented at the correct angle for landing on the vertical target. Air resistance [14Bennet-Clark H.C. Alder G.M. The effect of air resistance on the jumping performance of insects.J. Exp. Biol. 1979; 82: 105-121PubMed Google Scholar] was calculated to exert a maximum spin of the body relative to the horizon of 5° (∼20% of the total), making the exchange of angular momentum the dominant factor governing the rotation of the mantis. The four distinct exchanges of angular momentum between these components are detailed in the following example jump. First (Figures 2A and 2B , I), during the initial 10 ms after takeoff, the front legs continued their upward and anticlockwise (positive) rotation and the hind legs their clockwise (negative) rotation about the trunk (head and thorax). For example, at 5 ms, the front legs had an angular momentum of 103 g mm2 s−1 and the hind legs −32 g mm2 s−1. The abdomen changed direction from its initial slow clockwise rotation about the trunk to a similarly slow anticlockwise rotation, giving it a negligible average angular momentum. The trunk had an angular momentum of 49 g mm2 s−1, giving a total angular momentum for the whole mantis of 139 g mm2 s−1. If the front legs had stopped rotating at this stage, then their angular momentum would have transferred to the trunk, resulting in a large increase in spin by the mantis from 0.6° to 2.3° ms−1 relative to the horizontal. Second, starting approximately 10 ms after takeoff, the rotation of the front legs came to a halt, while the anticlockwise rotation of the abdomen about the trunk increased. By 25 ms into the jump, 103 g mm2 s−1 of angular momentum had been transferred from the front legs to the abdomen. The hind legs continued their clockwise rotation about the trunk with an angular momentum of −28 g mm2 s−1 (Figures 2A and 2B, II). Third, a further 15 ms into the aerial trajectory and 40 ms after takeoff, the rotation of the hind legs was reversed to the anticlockwise direction, bringing them forward into their landing position with 10 g mm2 s−1 of momentum at 40 ms, rising to 97 g mm2 s−1 at 60 ms. This was synchronized with a deceleration of the abdominal rotation toward an angular momentum of 36 g mm2 s−1 at 60 ms and an opposing clockwise rotation of the front legs of approximately −29 g mm2 s−1 (Figures 2A and 2B, III). Again, opposing rotations, this time of the front and hind legs, maintained a low angular momentum of the trunk about the horizontal. Last, during the final 10 ms before landing, the hind legs and abdomen stopped rotating. This was balanced by a sharp anticlockwise rotation of the front legs with 78 g mm2 s−1 of angular momentum (Figures 2A and 2B, IV). The net result of this entire sequence was that the trunk of the mantis spun by 50° relative to the horizontal with a near-constant angular momentum, aligning itself perfectly for landing with the front and hind legs ready to grasp the target. To assess possible variability in this sequence, we analyzed in further detail 13 jumps by five sixth instar mantises to the vertical target 1.5–2 body lengths away. While airborne, the trunk rotated with an angular velocity of 0.9° ± 0.1° ms−1 (mean of means ± SEM), and the abdomen and the hind legs rotated more than twice as fast at 2.9° ± 0.3° ms−1 and 2.3° ± 0.8° ms−1, respectively. The largest variability in angular velocity was thus seen in the rotations of the hind legs, where the SEM was approximately 25% of the mean compared to 10% for abdominal rotations. The time spent airborne for this group was 68.4 ± 3.4 ms. Two experimental manipulations were made to analyze the mechanics of the jump. First, the target distance was reduced, and the angular velocity of the trunk was measured. If the mantis is adjusting its rotations, then a shorter jump would have to be accompanied by a faster angular rotation of the trunk to align properly with the target. When jumping to a target one body length away, there were no anticlockwise rotations of the abdomen and the hind legs that occurred in periods II and III in jumps to the more distant targets (Figure 2). The mantis now rotated 64% faster at 1.4° ± 0.2° ms−1 and spent 66% less time airborne (44.9 ± 3.8 ms) while still landing precisely on the target (mean of means for six sixth instar mantises each jumping three times, compared with 13 jumps by five mantises jumping to targets at 1.5–2 body lengths). The absence of leg and abdominal rotations here, accompanied by a higher rotation rate of the trunk, thus confirms a role for these rotations in reducing whole-body spin in the longer jumps and also suggests that they are under active muscular control. In the second manipulation, flexibility of the abdomen was reduced by supergluing the segments together, and this resulted in the mantises rotating at an angular velocity of 0.6° ± 0.2° ms −1 (mean of means of 17 jumps by two fifth instar mantises). This rate of rotation was 57% slower than that of unimpeded mantises when jumping the same distance of one body length. A further consequence was that the experimentally modified mantises did not rotate enough to land with the appropriate orientation to the target and thus failed to grasp it. Some under-rotations even resulted in mantises hitting the target headfirst before falling away from it (Figure 1D; Supplemental Information; Movie S2). What mechanisms do other animals use when making a targeted jump? Primates swing their front limbs forward, the mass of which is sufficient to act as a counterweight contributing to forward thrust [15Demes B. Günther M.M. Biomechanics and allometric scaling in primate locomotion and morphology.Folia Primatol. (Basel). 1989; 53: 125-141Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 16Zajac F.E. Muscle coordination of movement: a perspective.J. Biomech. 1993; 26: 109-124Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar]. In the much lighter mantises, however, the swing of the front legs cannot contribute to thrust because of their small size [16Zajac F.E. Muscle coordination of movement: a perspective.J. Biomech. 1993; 26: 109-124Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar, 17Alexander R.M. Leg design and jumping technique for humans, other vertebrates and insects.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1995; 347: 235-248Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar]. Other invertebrates stabilize their mid-air trajectories by altering aerodynamic drag, a very different mechanism that exploits air resistance to maintain a constant orientation. Locusts curl their abdomen to help stabilize takeoff [18Cofer D. Cymbalyuk G. Heitler W.J. Edwards D.H. Control of tumbling during the locust jump.J. Exp. Biol. 2010; 213: 3378-3387Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar], and jumping spiders spin a drag line from their abdomen [19Chen Y.-K. Liao C.-P. Tsai F.-Y. Chi K.-J. More than a safety line: jump-stabilizing silk of salticids.J. R. Soc. Interface. 2013; 10: 20130572Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. Some insects also use their hind legs as rudders when airborne [11Yanoviak S.P. Munk Y. Kaspari M. Dudley R. Aerial manoeuvrability in wingless gliding ants (Cephalotes atratus).Proc. Biol. Sci. 2010; 277: 2199-2204Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 20Camhi J.M. Yaw-correcting postural changes in locusts.J. Exp. Biol. 1970; 52: 519-531Google Scholar]. By contrast, while wind resistance increased the total angular momentum in the mantis, the rotation of the legs and abdomen kept the angular momentum of the trunk low (Figure 2B, compare teal and black lines). Conservation of angular momentum to achieve specific body orientations is exploited by lizards, the tails of which act as reservoirs of angular momentum [4Libby T. Moore T.Y. Chang-Siu E. Li D. Cohen D.J. Jusufi A. Full R.J. Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs.Nature. 2012; 481: 181-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (219) Google Scholar, 5Jusufi A. Goldman D.I. Revzen S. Full R.J. Active tails enhance arboreal acrobatics in geckos.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105: 4215-4219Crossref PubMed Scopus (176) Google Scholar, 6Gillis G.B. Bonvini L.A. Irschick D.J. Losing stability: tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis.J. Exp. Biol. 2009; 212: 604-609Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar], and by falling cats, which counter-rotate the front and hind parts of their bodies [8Diamond J.M. Why cats have nine lives.Nature. 1988; 332: 586-587Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar]. The mantis, however, uses four different exchanges of angular momentum between three different rotating and interacting body parts and, in doing so, reduces whole-body spin 3-fold toward a constant value commensurate with reaching and landing precisely on a target. Some other insects (albeit ones that fly) have structures that they use as gyroscopes to provide fast sensory feedback during rotational motions. These operate over a timescale of milliseconds in flies (the halteres [21Dickinson M.H. Haltere-mediated equilibrium reflexes of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1999; 354: 903-916Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar]) or tens of milliseconds in moths (the antennae [22Sane S.P. Dieudonné A. Willis M.A. Daniel T.L. Antennal mechanosensors mediate flight control in moths.Science. 2007; 315: 863-866Crossref PubMed Scopus (209) Google Scholar]). Mantises do not have halteres, and their antennae are not large or mobile enough to match these feats. Moreover, while both halteres and antennae require Coriolis accelerations to measure angular velocity, mantises do not have structures that move in such a way as to generate and react to these forces (Movie S1). An assessment that now needs to be made for the mantis is the role of neural control (feedforward or feedback) in these exchanges of angular momentum. When jumping variable distances, mantises were able to adjust their rotation rates to achieve precise landings. Can the mantis also alter the trajectory of its jump after takeoff in response to changes in its environment? These principles of angular momentum exchange and their underlying control mechanisms could be extrapolated to the design of jumping robots, which presents a significant engineering problem to which solutions are still in the early stages of successful implementation [23Noh M. Kim S.-W. An S. Koh J.-S. Cho K.-J. Flea-inspired catapult mechanism for miniature jumping robots.IEEE Trans. Robot. 2012; 28: 1007-1018Crossref Scopus (178) Google Scholar, 24Zhang J. Song G. Li Y. Qiao G. Song A. Wang A. A bio-inspired jumping robot: Modeling, simulation, design, and experimental results.Mechatronics. 2013; 23: 1123-1140Crossref Scopus (67) Google Scholar, 25Churaman, W.A., Gerratt, A.P., and Bergbreiter, S. (2011). First leaps toward jumping microrobots. 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, September 25–30, 2011, 1680–1686.Google Scholar]. The mechanism described here, like gears [3Burrows M. Sutton G. Interacting gears synchronize propulsive leg movements in a jumping insect.Science. 2013; 341: 1254-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar], screws [26van de Kamp T. Vagovič P. Baumbach T. Riedel A. A biological screw in a beetle’s leg.Science. 2011; 333: 52Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar], and high-speed lever systems [27Robert D. Miles R.N. Hoy R.R. Tympanal mechanics in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea: intertympanal coupling during mechanical vibration.J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 1998; 183: 443-452Crossref Scopus (79) Google Scholar], represents another natural prototype of man-made devices. G.P.S. was supported by HFSP grant LT00422/2006-C. D.A.C. was funded by a Leverhulme Trust grant F/09 364/K to S.R. Ott (University of Leicester), whom we thank for his support. We thank Alexis Braun for rearing the mantises and our colleagues for their suggestions on the draft manuscript. Download .pdf (.29 MB) Help with pdf files Document S1. Supplemental Experimental Procedures, Figure S1, and Table S1eyJraWQiOiI4ZjUxYWNhY2IzYjhiNjNlNzFlYmIzYWFmYTU5NmZmYyIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2In0.eyJzdWIiOiJiNTk4OWUwNTMxNzdlNGVjMDViMDZkMWFlYmZlYzNiNiIsImtpZCI6IjhmNTFhY2FjYjNiOGI2M2U3MWViYjNhYWZhNTk2ZmZjIiwiZXhwIjoxNjc4MzMwMzA2fQ.qBC_KP0oTiPtN5g9debSXFLu35rDmb2QWkFhAUXCO5WG0yMgeTLR1HUoWaCUyEygvjNU4BxFw7vRdWAeJB2SxCrkEY7Z9I-y49Ln-1YcPgfWbIuhOpmbnsNISkiwceL3aDirPdk7fmkq6ejYCXNtDQ98jWDVMpkc46GxD27sZqdlqwZqCHHgCN6wSM0cBLFUGGXGFhXk_LDTMUx26oDVkReHTDPZW66n8aC6HIlL_ID5t1Xmfkbnjqg1ZT30ILaqgh5jOXx9BJlDQDUpZNlQ7P0ANCXEeS2ZMlSRR8LYJbEMv0Qq5MvqcufxpA52coVqONE_VgepzvJn-l5bF-WiFA Download .mp4 (2.09 MB) Help with .mp4 files Movie S1. Natural Jump to a TargetA jump by a male sixth instar mantis captured at 1,000 images s−1, with an exposure time of 0.2 ms and replayed at a rate of 30 images s−1.eyJraWQiOiI4ZjUxYWNhY2IzYjhiNjNlNzFlYmIzYWFmYTU5NmZmYyIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2In0.eyJzdWIiOiJhMDYzNTZjZjgyOWU0MTlmMTdmZWUwMmIwNTBjZTYwYiIsImtpZCI6IjhmNTFhY2FjYjNiOGI2M2U3MWViYjNhYWZhNTk2ZmZjIiwiZXhwIjoxNjc4MzMwMzA2fQ.FsJi-Nce-xjIsNDwgIRyC7zVyGMJPbhyOQhIj8MqQVeL5dJXFM-K1ej5rmmwUAOIfwPYvUI5Php6JhL2zVETEiBlwLnEwn0sNwp8LCFzyQ0qc3-i2BeXVM57kHx3MvuqEgv4QjI8LdZjSn0FvHzTOD37FO7IG76RDx807--RyRut3gh4hLkBEnw_GyQlQXyggEmc_phmBMEfoYt4fYXx10PP9RRckVz_HQDxHBjSqspwE7s3lSKVKau--vjcUudj_bKob--ox3PIohKX-8O_54fvSRus4d71kWUgL7bd5BJr6wYHV_sKCKOsJWCCc0ExBoRHG1U9uR-RMKPtH41cqw Download .mp4 (0.89 MB) Help with .mp4 files Movie S2. Impeded Jump to a TargetA jump by a female fifth instar mantis captured at 1,000 images s−1, with an exposure time of 0.2 ms and replayed at a rate of 30 images s−1. The abdominal segments were glued together, resulting in the mantis hitting the target with its head but failing to grasp it." @default.
• W2019907919 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019907919 creator A5009920152 @default.
• W2019907919 creator A5015735346 @default.
• W2019907919 creator A5024422613 @default.
• W2019907919 creator A5091210995 @default.
• W2019907919 date "2015-03-01" @default.
• W2019907919 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2019907919 title "Mantises Exchange Angular Momentum between Three Rotating Body Parts to Jump Precisely to Targets" @default.
• W2019907919 cites W1979658695 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W1989728025 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2005841765 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2013118631 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2023819050 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2024348536 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2028024192 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2049189308 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2055344458 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2055416786 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2075119689 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2082745040 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2084772888 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2087563362 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2091356137 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2101675889 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2105726658 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2108803425 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2112680152 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2117683423 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2127240487 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2129071914 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2142798560 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2159077249 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2166862960 @default.
• W2019907919 cites W2169995190 @default.
• W2019907919 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.054" @default.
• W2019907919 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25754643" @default.
• W2019907919 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2019907919 type Work @default.
• W2019907919 sameAs 2019907919 @default.
• W2019907919 citedByCount "20" @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192015 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192016 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192017 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192018 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192019 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192020 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192021 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192022 @default.
• W2019907919 countsByYear W20199079192023 @default.
• W2019907919 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019907919 hasAuthorship W2019907919A5009920152 @default.
• W2019907919 hasAuthorship W2019907919A5015735346 @default.
• W2019907919 hasAuthorship W2019907919A5024422613 @default.
• W2019907919 hasAuthorship W2019907919A5091210995 @default.
• W2019907919 hasBestOaLocation W20199079191 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C1276947 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C155675718 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C2780695682 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C74650414 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C121332964 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C1276947 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C155675718 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C2780695682 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C74650414 @default.
• W2019907919 hasConceptScore W2019907919C86803240 @default.
• W2019907919 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2019907919 hasLocation W20199079191 @default.
• W2019907919 hasLocation W20199079192 @default.
• W2019907919 hasLocation W20199079193 @default.
• W2019907919 hasLocation W20199079194 @default.
• W2019907919 hasOpenAccess W2019907919 @default.
• W2019907919 hasPrimaryLocation W20199079191 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W1591350379 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W1986530121 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2007985849 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2076414804 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2090662845 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2376155086 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2380512173 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W2380730634 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W3089025902 @default.
• W2019907919 hasRelatedWork W3121755517 @default.
• W2019907919 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2019907919 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019907919 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019907919 magId "2019907919" @default.
• W2019907919 workType "article" @default.