Living IoT: A Flying Wireless Platform on Live Insects

Sensor networks with devices capable of moving could enable applications ranging from precision irrigation to environmental sensing. Using mechanical drones to move sensors, however, severely limits operation time since flight time is limited by the energy density of current battery technology. We explore an alternative, biology-based solution: integrate sensing, computing and communication functionalities onto live flying insects to create a mobile IoT platform. Such an approach takes advantage of these tiny, highly efficient biological insects which are ubiquitous in many outdoor ecosystems, to essentially provide mobility for free. Doing so however requires addressing key technical challenges of power, size, weight and self-localization in order for the insects to perform location-dependent sensing operations as they carry our IoT payload through the environment. We develop and deploy our platform on bumblebees which includes backscatter communication, low-power self-localization hardware, sensors, and a power source. We show that our platform is capable of sensing, backscattering data at 1 kbps when the insects are back at the hive, and localizing itself up to distances of 80 m from the access points, all within a total weight budget of 102 mg.Comment: Co-primary authors: Vikram Iyer, Rajalakshmi Nandakumar, Anran Wang, In Proceedings of Mobicom. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages, 201

Patterns of pollen and nectar foraging specialization by bumblebees over multiple timescales using RFID

The ecological success of social insects is frequently ascribed to improvements in task performance due to division of labour amongst workers. While much research has focused on improvements associated with lifetime task specialization, members of colonies can specialize on a given task over shorter time periods. Eusocial bees in particular must collect pollen and nectar rewards to survive, but most workers appear to mix collection of both rewards over their lifetimes. We asked whether bumblebees specialize over timescales shorter than their lifetime. We also explored factors that govern such patterns, and asked whether reward specialists made more foraging bouts than generalists. In particular, we described antennal morphology and size of all foragers in a single colony and related these factors to each forager's complete foraging history, obtained using radio frequency identification (RFID). Only a small proportion of foragers were lifetime specialists; nevertheless, >50% of foragers specialized daily on a given reward. Contrary to expectations, daily and lifetime reward specialists were not better foragers (being neither larger nor making more bouts); larger bees with more antennal olfactory sensilla made more bouts, but were not more specialized. We discuss causes and functions of short and long-term patterns of specialization for bumblebee colonies.University of Arizona Graduate & Professional Student Council; University of Arizona Center for Insect Science; National Science Foundation [IOS-0921280]This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Individual identification and marking techniques for zebrafish

In laboratory fish research, the zebrafish Danio rerio (Cyprinidae) represents the equivalent of the mouse in mammalian research. This species has become a major model for studies in developmental and behavioural genetics, neurophysiology, biomedicine, ecotoxicology, and behavioural and evolutionary ecology. To meet the need for accurate and reproducible data in both fundamental and applied sciences, it is of primary importance to be able to tag and/or recognize individual zebrafish. However, classic methods used in fish ecology and aquaculture are generally difficult to apply to such small fish. Recently, various new tagging methods have been developed. This paper presents a first review of current identification and marking methods applied to zebrafish, from external observation methods (such as skin pattern recognition, fin clipping, scale regeneration, colour and transgenic methods) to the most advanced technological developments in electronic (low- and high- radio-frequencies PIT tags, microchip) and image analysis methods (video tracking). This review aims to help researchers and zebrafish facility managers select the identification method (ID) best adapted to their needs. The main characteristics of each ID method are examined (including detection range, durability, speed and repetitiveness, ID code combination, size dependence and ethical considerations), and their pros and cons are summarized in a decision table to help select the most appropriate option for a research or management program. Finally, contextual applications of these ID methods and future developments are discussed