Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

Efficient cruising for swimming and flying animals is dictated by fluid drag

Daniel Floryan, Tyler Van Buren, and Alexander J. Smits
PNAS August 7, 2018 115 (32) 8116-8118; published ahead of print June 18, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805941115
Daniel Floryan
aMechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel Floryan
  • For correspondence: dfloryan@princeton.edu
Tyler Van Buren
aMechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tyler Van Buren
Alexander J. Smits
aMechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by David A. Weitz, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved May 29, 2018 (received for review April 05, 2018)

See related content:

  • Simple scaling law predicts peak efficiency in oscillatory propulsion
    - Aug 07, 2018
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Almost 30 y ago, researchers discovered that a great variety of efficient swimmers cruise in a narrow range of Strouhal numbers, a dimensionless number describing the kinematics of swimming. Almost 15 y later, separate researchers discovered that fliers (bats, birds, and insects) also cruise in the same narrow range of Strouhal numbers. Attendant experiments on flapping airfoils have shown that this narrow range of Strouhal numbers gives rise to the most efficient kinematics. Here, we explain why this range of Strouhal numbers is the most efficient.

Abstract

Many swimming and flying animals are observed to cruise in a narrow range of Strouhal numbers, where the Strouhal number St=2fA/U is a dimensionless parameter that relates stroke frequency f, amplitude A, and forward speed U. Dolphins, sharks, bony fish, birds, bats, and insects typically cruise in the range 0.2<St<0.4, which coincides with the Strouhal number range for maximum efficiency as found by experiments on heaving and pitching airfoils. It has therefore been postulated that natural selection has tuned animals to use this range of Strouhal numbers because it confers high efficiency, but the reason why this is so is still unclear. Here, by using simple scaling arguments, we argue that the Strouhal number for peak efficiency is largely determined by fluid drag on the fins and wings.

  • swimming
  • flight
  • biolocomotion
  • drag

Swimming and flying animals across many species and scales cruise in a relatively narrow range of Strouhal numbers 0.2<St<0.4 (1, 2). The Strouhal number St=2fA/U is a dimensionless parameter that relates stroke frequency f, stroke amplitude A, and forward speed U. It has been hypothesized that for animals that range widely or migrate over long distances, natural selection should favor swimming and flying motions of high propulsive efficiency, and so the kinematics, described by the Strouhal number, should be tuned for high propulsive efficiency. Indeed, the cruising range of Strouhal numbers observed in nature overlaps the range of Strouhal numbers experimentally shown to result in high propulsive efficiency for simple propulsors (1, 3, 4).

A typical efficiency curve for a simple propulsor is shown in Fig. 1. We see that at low Strouhal numbers, the efficiency rapidly rises with increasing Strouhal number, reaches a maximum, and then falls off relatively slowly with further increases in Strouhal number. Here, the propulsive efficiency η is defined as η=TU/P, where T is the mean net thrust that propels the animal forward, U is the mean forward cruising speed, and P is the mean mechanical power required to create the thrust.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

A typical efficiency curve showing efficiency η as a function of St. Data are for a heaving and pitching NACA0012 foil (5) (A/L=0.19, and heaving leads pitching by 90°).

What dictates the Strouhal number that leads to maximum efficiency? Three prevailing theories have been proposed. The first (1, 6) argues that peak efficiency occurs when the kinematics result in the maximum amplification of the shed vortices in the wake, yielding maximum thrust per unit of input energy; this phenomenon has been termed “wake resonance” (7). The second theory (8) argues that the preferred Strouhal number is connected with maximizing the angle of attack allowed, while avoiding the shedding of leading edge vortices. The third (9) holds that, for aquatic animals, the ratio of the tail beat amplitude to the body length essentially dictates the Strouhal number for cruise, since it requires a balance between thrust and drag.

Here, we offer a simple alternative explanation for the observed peak in efficiency, and we also explain the rapid rise in efficiency at low St and the more gradual decrease at high St. Our explanation highlights the important role that fluid drag plays in determining the efficiency behavior.

Consider a cruising animal, one that is moving at constant velocity. We make the assumption that the thrust is produced primarily by its propulsor (for example, caudal fin for a fish, fluke for a mammal, wing for a bird) and that the drag is composed of two parts: the drag due to its body (Db, proportional to the body surface area), and an “offset” drag due to its propulsor (Do, proportional to the propulsor frontal area projected over its range of motion). More details are given below.

This decomposition is illustrated in Fig. 2, where the thrust-producing propulsor is separated from the drag-producing body and represented by an oscillating airfoil (10). To be clear, fliers are distinct from swimmers in that fliers’ propulsors need to produce lift to combat gravity, in addition to thrust to propel themselves forward. As far as steady forward cruising is concerned, however, the physics of forward propulsion is not affected by the additional requirement of lift (10).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Swimmers and fliers can be decomposed into thrust-producing (orange) and drag-producing (blue) parts, with the propulsor aptly represented by an oscillating airfoil.

We also simplify the motion of the propulsor to model it as a combination of heaving (amplitude H) and pitching (amplitude Θ). Biologically relevant motions are ones where the heaving and pitching motions are in phase or where the heaving motion leads the pitching motion by 90° (4). In cruise, our model requires that the thrust produced by the propulsor balances the total fluid drag experienced by the body and the propulsor.

We now consider the performance (thrust, power, and efficiency) of an isolated propulsor. For the net thrust T, we use the scalingT∼ρSpV2−Do,[1]where ρ is the density of the fluid, Sp is the area of the propulsor, and V (∼fA) is the characteristic speed of the transverse motion of the propulsor. The V2 scaling is derived in SI Appendix, where it is also shown to be representative of biologically relevant flapping motions. In addition, the scaling is supported by theory (11, 12), empirical curve fits on fish performance (13, 14), and the performance of a large group of swimming animals (15). As indicated above, we will assume that for a cruising animal the net thrust of the propulsor balances the drag of the body Db, where Db∼ρSbU2, and Sb is the surface area of the body. Hence, for a negligible offset drag,St2∼Sb/Sp.[2]Previous work has proposed that this thrust–drag balance alone yields a constant Strouhal number (15). However, Eq. 2 shows that this conclusion implicitly assumes that Do=0 and that the area ratio Sb/Sp remains constant, which will not hold across the many different species that cruise in the preferred range 0.2<St<0.4. To arrive at a more general result, we need to understand the energetics determining swimming and flying. The net thrust of the propulsor at peak efficiency then sets the cruising speed.

For the power expended, we adopt the scalingP∼ρSpfLV2−VhVθ,[3]where L is a characteristic length scale of the propulsor, and Vh and Vθ are the transverse velocity scales characteristic of the heaving and pitching motions, respectively. This scaling is derived in SI Appendix, where further details are given. It is based on established theory and analysis (11, 16, 17), and it is corroborated by a large set of experiments (4). It derives from the nonlinear interaction of the power produced by the propulsor velocity and its acceleration, an interaction that is critical to our understanding of the large-amplitude motions observed in nature.

We now consider the offset drag—that is, the drag of the propulsor in the limit of vanishing f—which scales asDo∼ρU2Spg(Θ).[4]Here, Θ is the amplitude of the pitching motion, and the function g(Θ) is positive when Θ=0 and increases with Θ (3, 4). The offset drag can be viewed as scaling with the projected frontal area of the propulsor, as in bluff body flows (18).

Hence, we arrive atη=TUP∼V2U−b1U3gfL(V2−VhVθ),[5]where the constant b1 sets the relative importance of the drag term compared with the thrust term (in general, we expect b1 to be a function of Reynolds number Re=ρLU/ν, where μ is the fluid viscosity). The efficiency can be recast in terms of the Strouhal number St=2fA/U and a dimensionless amplitude A*=A/L, so thatη∼A*St2−b1gSt31−H*Θ*.[6]The other nondimensional terms, H*=H/A and Θ*=LΘ/A, represent, respectively, the amplitudes of the heaving and pitching motions relative to the total amplitude of motion.

We see immediately that to achieve high efficiency, the dimensionless amplitude A* should be large. This observation is consistent with the argument put forth by R. M. Alexander, where he proposed that large-amplitude motions are more efficient than small-amplitude motions (19). However, there are two potential limiting factors. First, as A* becomes larger, the instantaneous angle of attack increases, dynamic stall effects may become important, and the drag model given here for Do will be invalidated. Second, animal morphology naturally sets a limit as to how large they can make A*. For efficient cruising, therefore, A* should be as large as an animal’s morphology allows, while avoiding dynamic stall at all times. Our argument is consistent with the experimental observations made by Saadat et al. (9) in what we called the third theory. The author of ref. 8 (the second theory) similarly argues for large-amplitude motions, although she argues that large-amplitude motions are connected to the optimal Strouhal number, whereas we argue that, all else fixed, the amplitude sets the total efficiency, but it does not dictate the optimal Strouhal number.

What about the optimal Strouhal number? When there is no offset drag (b1=0), the efficiency increases monotonically as St decreases, and the optimal efficiency is achieved in the limit St→0. However, in the presence of offset drag (b1≠0), the efficiency will become negative as St→0 because the drag dominates the thrust produced by the propulsor. In general, Eq. 6 gives negative efficiencies at low St, a rapid increase with St to achieve a positive peak value at St=3b1g, and a subsequent slow decrease with further increase in St as the influence of drag becomes weaker. The comparison between the form given by Eq. 6 and the data originally shown in Fig. 1 makes this clear, as displayed in Fig. 3. The offset drag is crucial in determining the low St behavior and in setting the particular St at which the peak efficiency occurs. Note that the maximum value of the efficiency is directly related to the value of the drag constant b1, which further emphasizes the critical role of the drag term in determining the efficiency behavior. The amplification of shed vortices described in the wake resonance theory (the first theory) may simply arise as a signature of the efficient production of net thrust, but this is purely speculative.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Efficiency η as a function of St. Data are as given in Fig. 1 for a heaving and pitching NACA0012 foil (5). Solid lines are given by Eq. 6 with a fixed proportionality constant of 0.155. The drag constant, b1, is set to 0.5, 0.35, 0.23, 0.15, 0.1, and 0.05 as the colors vary from dark to light, and we have set g(Θ)=Θ. The proportionality constant and the value of b1 corresponding to the experimental data were calculated by a total least squares fit to the data.

Finally, we consider the composition of the motion—that is, the relative amounts of heaving and pitching. As shown in SI Appendix, for biologically relevant flapping motions, the denominator of Eq. 6 is minimized (and hence efficiency is maximized) when H=LΘ. In other words, optimally efficient propulsors should have heaving and pitching motions that contribute equally to the total motion. When we also take the numerator of Eq. 6 into account, we actually expect the heaving contribution to be a little larger because the offset drag is dominated by pitch. We are not aware of biological measurements that would allow us to test the optimal heaving and pitching balance, so at this point it remains a hypothesis.

We leave the reader with a final thought. We expect that the relative importance of the drag, captured by b1, will depend on the Reynolds number. Our drag model is similar to that for a bluff body, such as a sphere or cylinder, so we expect b1 will be large at small Reynolds numbers and decrease as the Reynolds number increases until it reaches about 1,000, above which the drag will be almost constant (at least for Re<2×105, although biological measurements imply that the drag may remain constant up to Re=108) (15, 20). Therefore, at low Reynolds numbers, the location of the peak efficiency will change with Reynolds number: As the Reynolds number increases, the optimal St will decrease, until b1 reaches its asymptotic value at a sufficiently high Reynolds number. Our conclusion is consistent with biological measurements (at least for swimmers), where the preferred Strouhal number appears to decrease as the Reynolds number increases, until it reaches an asymptotic value (15). This further substantiates our claim that the presence of fluid drag on the propulsor is the crucial factor in creating an efficiency peak, which dictates the cruising conditions of swimming and flying animals. In other words, energetic considerations set the kinematics of the propulsor to the most efficient one, and the net thrust of the propulsor at peak efficiency balances the drag of the body to set the cruising speed.

Materials and Methods

The experimental setup is the same as described by Van Buren et al. (4). Experiments on a heaving and pitching airfoil were conducted in a water tunnel with a 0.46×0.3×2.44 m test section, with the tunnel velocity set to U=0.1 m/s. A teardrop airfoil of chord L=0.08 m, thickness 0.008 m, and span 0.279 m was used, yielding a chord-based Reynolds number of Re=8000.

Heaving motions were generated by a linear actuator (Linmot PS01-23 × 80F-HP-R), pitching motions about the leading edge were generated by a servo motor (Hitec HS-8370TH), and both were measured by encoders. The heaving and pitching motions were sinusoidal, as described in SI Appendix, Eqs. S1 and S2, with frequencies f=0.2 to 0.8 Hz every 0.1 Hz, heaving amplitudes H=0.01,0.02,0.03 m, pitching amplitudes Θ=5°,10°,15°, and phase angles ϕ=0° and 90°, with experiments performed on all combinations of the kinematic parameters.

The forces and moments imparted by the water on the airfoil were measured by a six-component sensor (ATI Mini40) at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. The force and torque resolutions were 5×10−3 N and 1.25×10−4 N⋅m, respectively, in the streamwise and cross-stream directions, and 10−2 N and 1.25×10−4 N⋅m, respectively, in the spanwise direction. Each case was run for 30 cycles, with the first and last five cycles used for warmup and cooldown. All sensors were zeroed before every case.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-14-1-0533 (program manager, Robert Brizzolara).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: dfloryan{at}princeton.edu.
  • Author contributions: D.F. and T.V.B. designed research; D.F. and T.V.B. performed research; D.F. and T.V.B. analyzed data; and D.F. and A.J.S. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • See Commentary on page 8063.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1805941115/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Triantafyllou MS,
    2. Triantafyllou GS,
    3. Gopalkrishnan R
    (1991) Wake mechanics for thrust generation in oscillating foils. Phys Fluids A Fluid Dyn 3:2835–2837.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Taylor GK,
    2. Nudds RL,
    3. Thomas ALR
    (2003) Flying and swimming animals cruise at a Strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature 425:707–711.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Floryan D,
    2. Van Buren T,
    3. Rowley CW,
    4. Smits AJ
    (2017) Scaling the propulsive performance of heaving and pitching foils. J Fluid Mech 822:386–397.
    .
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Van Buren T,
    2. Floryan D,
    3. Smits AJ
    (March 8, 2018) Scaling and performance of simultaneously heaving and pitching foils. AIAA J doi:10.2514/1.J056635.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Quinn DB,
    2. Lauder GV,
    3. Smits AJ
    (2015) Maximizing the efficiency of a flexible propulsor using experimental optimization. J Fluid Mech 767:430–448.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Triantafyllou GS,
    2. Triantafyllou MS,
    3. Grosenbaugh MA
    (1993) Optimal thrust development in oscillating foils with application to fish propulsion. J Fluids Struct 7:205–224.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Moored KW,
    2. Dewey PA,
    3. Smits AJ,
    4. Haj-Hariri H
    (2012) Hydrodynamic wake resonance as an underlying principle of efficient unsteady propulsion. J Fluid Mech 708:329–348.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Wang ZJ
    (2000) Vortex shedding and frequency selection in flapping flight. J Fluid Mech 410:323–341.
    .
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Saadat M,
    2. Fish FE,
    3. Domel AG,
    4. Di Santo V,
    5. Lauder GV,
    6. Haj-Hariri H
    (2017) On the rules for aquatic locomotion. Phys Rev Fluids 2:083102.
    .
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Wu TY
    (2011) Fish swimming and bird/insect flight. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 43:25–58.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Garrick IE
    (1936) Propulsion of a flapping and oscillating airfoil (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Washington, DC), Technical Report 567.
    .
  12. ↵
    1. Lighthill MJ
    (1971) Large-amplitude elongated-body theory of fish locomotion. Proc R Soc B 179 125–138.
    .
  13. ↵
    1. Bainbridge R
    (1958) The speed of swimming of fish as related to size and to the frequency and amplitude of the tail beat. J Exp Biol 35:109–133.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Bainbridge R
    (1963) Caudal fin and body movement in the propulsion of some fish. J Exp Biol 40:23–56.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract
  15. ↵
    1. Gazzola M,
    2. Argentina M,
    3. Mahadevan L
    (2014) Scaling macroscopic aquatic locomotion. Nat Phys 10:758–761.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Theodorsen T
    (1935) General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Washington, DC), Technical Report 496; originally published as ARR-1935.
    .
  17. ↵
    1. Sedov LI
    (1965) Two-Dimensional Problems in Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics (Interscience Publishers, New York).
    .
  18. ↵
    1. White FM
    (2011) Fluid Mechanics (McGraw Hill, New York).
    .
  19. ↵
    1. Alexander RM
    (2003) Principles of Animal Locomotion (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
    .
  20. ↵
    1. Schlichting H
    (1979) Boundary-Layer Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York), 7th Ed.
    .
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficient cruising for swimming and flying animals is dictated by fluid drag
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Efficient cruising for swimming and flying animals is dictated by fluid drag
Daniel Floryan, Tyler Van Buren, Alexander J. Smits
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2018, 115 (32) 8116-8118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805941115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Efficient cruising for swimming and flying animals is dictated by fluid drag
Daniel Floryan, Tyler Van Buren, Alexander J. Smits
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2018, 115 (32) 8116-8118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805941115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (7)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Core Concept: Solving Peto’s Paradox to better understand cancer
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Image credit: Shutterstock.com/ronnybas frimages.
Featured Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Hao Wu
 Nonmonogamous strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio).  Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Putative signature of monogamy
A study suggests a putative gene-expression hallmark common to monogamous male vertebrates of some species, namely cichlid fishes, dendrobatid frogs, passeroid songbirds, common voles, and deer mice, and identifies 24 candidate genes potentially associated with monogamy.
Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Active lifestyles. Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.
Meaningful life tied to healthy aging
Physical and social well-being in old age are linked to self-assessments of life worth, and a spectrum of behavioral, economic, health, and social variables may influence whether aging individuals believe they are leading meaningful lives.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.

More Articles of This Classification

Physical Sciences

  • Deep elastic strain engineering of bandgap through machine learning
  • Single-molecule excitation–emission spectroscopy
  • Microscopic description of acid–base equilibrium
Show more

Engineering

  • Deep elastic strain engineering of bandgap through machine learning
  • Realizing the potential of dielectric elastomer artificial muscles
  • Directional pumping of water and oil microdroplets on slippery surface
Show more

Biological Sciences

  • Structural basis for activity of TRIC counter-ion channels in calcium release
  • PGC1A regulates the IRS1:IRS2 ratio during fasting to influence hepatic metabolism downstream of insulin
  • Altered neural odometry in the vertical dimension
Show more

Biophysics and Computational Biology

  • Structural basis for activity of TRIC counter-ion channels in calcium release
  • Five computational developability guidelines for therapeutic antibody profiling
  • Atomic-level characterization of protein–protein association
Show more

Related Content

  • Simple scaling law predicts peak efficiency in oscillatory propulsion
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • Simple scaling law predicts peak efficiency in oscillatory propulsion
  • Scopus (1)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490