Abstract
When aiming to capture a fast-moving target, animals can follow it until they catch up, or try to intercept it. In principle, interception is the more complicated strategy, but also more energy efficient. To study whether simple feedback controllers can explain interception behaviours by animals with miniature brains, we have reconstructed and studied the predatory flights of the robber fly Holcocephala fusca and killer fly Coenosia attenuata. Although both species catch other aerial arthropods out of the air, Holcocephala contrasts prey against the open sky, while Coenosia hunts against clutter and at much closer range. Thus, their solutions to this target catching task may differ significantly. We reconstructed in three dimensions the flight trajectories of these two species and those of the presented targets they were attempting to intercept. We then tested their recorded performances against simulations. We found that both species intercept targets on near time-optimal courses. To investigate the guidance laws that could underlie this behaviour, we tested three alternative control systems (pure pursuit, deviated pursuit and proportional navigation). Only proportional navigation explains the timing and magnitude of fly steering responses, but with differing gain constants and delays for each fly species. Holcocephala uses a dimensionless navigational constant of N ≈ 3 with a time delay of ≈28 ms to intercept targets over a comparatively long range. This constant is optimal, as it minimizes the control effort required to hit the target. In contrast, Coenosia uses a constant of N ≈ 1.5 with a time delay of ≈18 ms, this setting may allow Coenosia to cope with the extremely high line-of-sight rotation rates, which are due to close target proximity, and thus prevent overcompensation of steering. This is the first clear evidence of interception supported by proportional navigation in insects. This work also demonstrates how by setting different gains and delays, the same simple feedback controller can yield the necessary performance in two different environments.
Highlights
After detecting a moving object, animals must choose the appropriate response
Small predatory flies tackle what is essentially the same predatory task as that of dragonflies. Have their miniature brains evolved a predictive system? Or are feedback controllers tuned to the requirements of the species sufficient? Here, we investigate if a feedback controller can explain the aerial hunts of a North American robber fly (Holcocephala fusca, 6 mm body size) and a Mediterranean killer fly (Coenosia attenuata, 4 mm body size) towards objects moving with either constant or erratic velocities
Flights of both fly species were reconstructed in 3D
Summary
After detecting a moving object, animals must choose the appropriate response. A potential mate or prey on the move should be approached or followed using a swift and precise tactic, such as pursuit or interception [3,4,5]. This high performance behaviour is common in aerial [3,6], terrestrial [7] and aquatic habitats [8,9], and is conducted by species widely distributed across the phylogenetic tree, from small insects to large mammals. A chaser can navigate so that (i) it heads directly
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
