Letter | Published:

Comparative power curves in bird flight


The relationship between mechanical power output and forward velocity in bird flight is controversial, bearing on the comparative physiology and ecology of locomotion1,2. Applied to flying birds, aerodynamic theory predicts that mechanical power should vary as a function of forward velocity in a U-shaped curve. The only empirical test of this theory, using the black-billed magpie (Pica pica), suggests that the mechanical power curve is relatively flat over intermediate velocities3. Here, by integrating in vivo measurements of pectoralis force and length change with quasi-steady aerodynamic models developed using data on wing and body movement, we present mechanical power curves for cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) and ringed turtle-doves (Streptopelia risoria). In contrast to the curve reported for magpies3, the power curve for cockatiels is acutely concave, whereas that for doves is intermediate in shape and shows higher mass-specific power output at most speeds. We also find that wing-beat frequency and mechanical power output do not necessarily share minima in flying birds. Thus, aspects of morphology, wing kinematics and overall style of flight can greatly affect the magnitude and shape of a species' power curve.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Ellington, C. P. Limitations on animal flight performance. J. Exp. Biol. 160, 71–91 (1990)

  2. 2

    Rayner, J. M. V. Estimating power curves of flying vertebrates. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 3449–3461 (1999)

  3. 3

    Dial, K. P., Biewener, A. A., Tobalske, B. W. & Warrick, D. R. Mechanical power output of bird flight. Nature 390, 67–70 (1997)

  4. 4

    Rayner, J. M. V. A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 2. The forward flight of birds. J. Fluid Mech. 91, 731–763 (1979)

  5. 5

    Norberg, U. M. Vertebrate Flight: Mechanics, Physiology, Morphology, Ecology and Evolution (Springer, Berlin, 1990)

  6. 6

    Askew, G. N., Marsh, R. L. & Ellington, C. P. The mechanical power output of the flight muscles of blue-breasted quail (Coturnix coturnix) during take-off. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3601–3619 (2001)

  7. 7

    Biewener, A. A., Corning, W. R. & Tobalske, B. W. In vivo muscle force-length behavior during level flight in pigeons (Columba livia). J. Exp. Biol. 201, 3293–3307 (1998)

  8. 8

    Pennycuick, C. J., Klaasen, M., Kvist, A. & Lindström, Å. Wingbeat frequency and the body drag anomaly: wind-tunnel observations on a thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) and a teal (Anas crecca). J. Exp. Biol. 199, 2757–2765 (1996)

  9. 9

    Tobalske, B. W. Biomechanics and physiology of gait selection in flying birds. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73, 736–750 (2000)

  10. 10

    Tobalske, B. W. & Dial, K. P. Effects of body size on take-off performance in the Phasianidae (Aves). J. Exp. Biol. 203, 3319–3332 (2000)

  11. 11

    Rosser, B. W. C. & George, J. C. The avian pectoralis: histochemical characterization and distribution of muscle fiber types. Can. J. Zool. 64, 1174–1185 (1986)

  12. 12

    Rosser, B. W. C., Wick, M., Waldbillig, D. M. & Bandman, E. Heterogeneity of myosin heavy-chain expression in fast-twitch fiber types of mature avian pectoralis muscle. Biochem. Cell Biol. 74, 715–728 (1996)

  13. 13

    Dial, K. P. Activity patterns of the wing muscles of the pigeon (Columba livia). J. Exp. Zool. 262, 357–373 (1992)

  14. 14

    Thomas, A. L. R. On the aerodynamics of birds' tails. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 340, 361–380 (1993)

  15. 15

    Hedrick, T. L., Tobalske, B. W. & Biewener, A. A. Estimates of circulation and gait change based on a three-dimensional kinematic analysis of flight in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) and ringed turtle-doves (Streptopelia risoria). J. Exp. Biol. 205, 1389–1409 (2002)

  16. 16

    Pennycuick, C. J., Alterstam, T. & Hedenström, A. A new low-turbulence wind tunnel for bird flight experiments at Lund University, Sweden. J. Exp. Biol. 200, 1441–1449 (1997)

Download references


We thank G. Lauder and F. Jenkins Jr for comments on this work, and the Concord Field Station staff for animal care and help with experiments. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to A.A.B. and K.P.D., and from Murdock to B.W.T.

Author information

Correspondence to B. W. Tobalske.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Figure 1: In vivo recordings of pectoralis strain, force and work per wing-beat cycle.
Figure 2: Pectoralis power as a function of flight velocity.
Figure 3: Pectoralis power, work and wing-beat frequency as a function of flight velocity, with values expressed as a percentage of the observed within-species mean for each variable.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.