Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
InsectsInsects
  • Opinion
  • Open Access

2 February 2026

Arthropods as Models for Transdisciplinary Bio-Inspired Research and Discovery

,
,
and
1
School of Biological Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
2
Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Arthropods in Ecosystem Resilience: Biodiversity, Distribution, and Conservation Strategies

Simple Summary

In this opinion article, we propose that arthropods—insects, crustaceans, centipedes and millipedes, and arachnids—can act as a unifying theme to bring together researchers with distinct expertise to solve current challenges. Following a brief introduction of arthropods that highlights their deep evolutionary history and tremendous diversity, we provide an overview of the role of arthropods in the history of human innovation, including examples of arthropods in food, medicine, agriculture, materials, and technology. Next, we discuss how arthropods are part of our largest challenges but may also be key to the solutions. We discuss multiple models for creating transdisciplinary research teams—(1) challenge-focused, (2) taxon-focused, and (3) innovatively open-ended with respect to challenge and taxon—and the scales at which they can be created—local/regional/global. We then focus our arguments on the third model, suggesting that arthropods can provide a centering focal point for transdisciplinary research, and we propose that they act as an inspirational magnet to pull together distinct scholars to coalesce and collaborate around a common nature-based theme. Ultimately, we encourage more open-ended teams, concluding that a transdisciplinary research community centered generally on arthropods would be well-positioned to tackle multiple solution-based collaborations, and that such collaborations are likely to lead to novel discoveries and nature-inspired innovations.

Abstract

This opinion article proposes that arthropods, with their tremendous biodiversity and evolutionary resilience, can offer abundant opportunities for integrative, transdisciplinary, solution-focused research. To support this proposal, we first (1) introduce arthropods and showcase their deep evolutionary history and tremendous diversity. Next, we (2) briefly discuss the role of arthropods in the history of human innovation and highlight some of the challenges they have helped us overcome. We provide select examples of the importance and innovation of arthropods in food, medicine, agriculture, materials, and technology. We then discuss (3) arthropods and grand challenges, articulating how they are both part of the problem and key to the solution. (4) We discuss multiple models for creating transdisciplinary research teams—1. challenge-focused, 2. taxon-focused, and 3. innovatively open-ended with respect to challenge and taxon—and the scales at which they can be created—local/regional/global. Finally, (5) we suggest that arthropods can provide a centering focal point for transdisciplinary research; an inspirational magnet that can pull together distinct scholars to coalesce and collaborate around a common nature-based theme. Our strategic next steps include exploring open-ended arthropod-focused research teams, as they would be well-positioned to tackle multiple solution-based collaborations, and such collaborations are likely to lead to novel discoveries and nature-inspired innovations.

1. Introduction

Living arthropods—comprising Chelicerata, Myriapoda, and Pancrustacea [1,2], which include insects, crustaceans, centipedes and millipedes, and arachnids—encompass a diverse and resilient group of animals that have survived on our planet for hundreds of millions of years, living in virtually all environments. Although they represent only one of the more than 30 extant animal phyla [2], with more than 1.5 million described species, arthropods make up around 80% of all known animals [3]. Recent estimates suggest that there could be as many as 7 million arthropod species [4]. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that with their abundance and adaptability, arthropods have a deep, intertwined history with human society.
From the formation of the Silk Road by the humble silk moth to cockroach-inspired search and rescue robots [5,6], arthropods have been central to human innovation and progress. Simultaneously, arthropods have posed (and continue to pose) some of humankind’s most pressing challenges, from insect pests that devastate our crops and reduce our food supply to arthropod disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes and ticks) that carry and transmit deadly pathogens. Even beyond arthropod-derived material inspiration and health risks, our lives are interdependent on our arthropod relatives in innumerable ways. The ecosystem services provided by arthropods, and the bioinspiration derived from them [7,8], touch nearly every aspect of society, including health, agriculture, engineering, biological pest control, and culture [7,8,9,10].
In this opinion article, we first highlight some important contributions that arthropods have made to human society and innovation. We next articulate current challenges facing humankind. Finally, we argue that with their history of success and survival, arthropods provide a deep reservoir of knowledge from which to draw upon for future solutions to grand challenges. We conclude that arthropods are an ideal focal point for transdisciplinary research: research that seeks to understand and influence broad-scale change through transdisciplinary collaboration. Ultimately, we encourage scientists across disciplines to consider arthropods as a shared model system through which transdisciplinary collaboration can spark innovation.

2. A Brief Glance at Arthropod Importance and Innovation

Drawing from nearly 500 million years of arthropod evolution, humans have been able to continuously derive creativity and innovation from arthropod biology. Arthropods have been used as models for problem-solving, engineering, and artistic inspiration. They have shaped our culture and society from medicine to architecture, food, and technology. Arthropods have been instrumental in major breakthroughs, including the Silk Road that vitalized world trade, founded by the silk moth [5], or Shellac, sourced from the secretions of the small (2 mm-long) female lac bug, which is used to coat and protect the finest instruments, wooden furniture, homes, and artwork [11]. Beyond innovations, arthropods have provided us with a foundational understanding of genetics, neurobiology, and behavior (e.g., research on the fruit fly [12]). We owe many of our greatest successes to arthropods, including our continued survival.
In this first section, we provide some relevant examples of the historical role of arthropods in (i) food, (ii) medicine, (iii) agriculture, (iv) materials, and (v) technology. We note that we have chosen only select examples to highlight, as an inclusive and complete review of the history of arthropod importance and innovation is beyond the scope of this opinion article.

2.1. Arthropods and Food

Arthropods have long been a part of the human diet [13,14,15] and likely played an important nutritional role for early humans, providing a low-capture-risk source of protein and important fatty acids and lipids [16,17]. There is evidence that arthropods in early human diets have included termites [15], grasshoppers [18], and crustaceans [19,20]—arthropods that are still consumed by humans today. Historical and more modern contexts demonstrate how entomophagy (the practice of eating insects) intersects with cultural identity and themes of human resilience. In South Korea, silkworm pupa Bombyx mori (Linneaus 1758), known as beondegi 번데기, became a cheap source of protein during the post Korean war era [21]; and in Japan during World War II, food scarcity led to silk mill workers eating silkworm pupae, known as kaiko カイコ [22]. Chapulines—Mexican grasshoppers that are emblematic of Oaxaca’s indigenous roots—served as important sources of protein during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and even during the COVID-19 pandemic [23]. Entomophagy remains a cultural tradition across the globe, with an estimated several hundred million people consuming [24] the >2000 recorded edible insect species [25]. Similarly, consumption of crustaceans remains widespread. Canada is the largest producer of snow crab, at 90,000 tons reported in 2025 [26]. China is the largest producer of red crab, with total crab production near one million tons in 2025 [26].
Entomophagy extends beyond whole animal consumption to its influence on food products like honey and figs. These products rely on arthropods, and both have a deep history and a current global market. One of the oldest human records of honey dates to 20,000 years ago, where wall paintings depict honey harvesting in modern-day Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Zambia [27,28]. Similarly, cave paintings from Europe at the end of the last glaciation, 20,000 to 13,000 years ago, show a collection of honey via rope ladders [17]. Today, around 94 million beehives worldwide produce about 1.77 million tons of honey each year [29]. Like how honey requires bees, some varieties of figs require wasp pollination (e.g., Calimyrna figs) [30]. Overall, pollinators account for 5–8% of global crop production [31], and non-bee insects account for 25–50% of the floral visits of globally important crops [32].
Arthropods are also increasingly used in animal feed for livestock, pets, and captive animals as a replacement for traditional protein sources such as poultry or pork [33,34,35]. Arthropod substitutions come in various forms, such as flours, oils, or whole insects [34]. The use of arthropods in animal feed has been shown to reduce pathogen presence in livestock [36] and their manure [37], encourage weight gain [38], and promote sustainable farming practices, offering improvement in global food security [16,33,34,39].

2.2. Arthropods and Medicine

From ancient to modern times, arthropods have been closely linked with human health. While often considered as carriers of disease (e.g., fleas and the bubonic plague, mosquitoes and malaria, and ticks and Lyme disease), arthropods have also served as medicine and a source for biomedical innovation. Silk, for example, is one of the oldest arthropod-derived biomedical materials, with a history that can be traced back nearly 7000 years [40]. Ancient Greeks and Romans bundled unprocessed spider silk to treat wounds [40], and more recently (1800s) used it as sutures for incisions [41]. Since then, spider silk has been investigated for its potential in tissue engineering [42,43,44] due to its high biocompatibility, low immunogenicity, limited bacterial adhesion, and controllable biodegradability [40,45].
Arthropod antibacterial peptides (cockroaches [46]) and affinities for dead tissues (maggots [47]) offer possibilities for the development of novel antimicrobials and targeted wound cleaning processes, respectively. Horseshoe crabs are perhaps most infamous for the production of limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) in their bright blue blood [48]. The LAL assay is widely used to test vaccines for contamination, checking for bacteria [49].
Arthropod venom also offers tremendous pharmaceutical potential. Bee venoms (apitoxin) have anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic, and neuroprotective properties against Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease [50]; wasp and hornet venoms contain anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial properties [51,52,53]; while scorpion, centipede, and spider venom have been identified as containing novel compounds with painkiller potential [54]. Further, a scorpion-derived venom protein can make brain tumors fluoresce [55,56], aiding in the precise identification of cancerous tissue.
Arthropods are not only sources of important biomedical resources, but they often serve as stand-in models for testing new and innovative pharmaceuticals. The fruit fly, Drosophila, has long been used as a model for human disease, as it shares ~60% of its genes with humans [57]. Additionally, 62% of human disease genes are conserved in Drosophila [58]. With a complete genome [59,60] and a complete connectome [61], the opportunities afforded by Drosophila to study health and disease range from cancers and hereditary diseases [57] to the impacts of microplastics on human health [62].
Ultimately, arthropods hold a dual role in human health as carriers of disease and sources of healing. Their unique properties have resulted in new therapies, drugs, and methods of care that span from closing wounds to cancer treatment. Despite significant advances, there remain numerous unrealized opportunities for arthropods in medicine.

2.3. Arthropods and Agriculture

Like in human health, arthropods have long played a dual role in agriculture—as beneficial organisms but also as persistent pests. Positively, they serve directly as pollinators and predators to herbivores [31,32,63,64]. Arthropods such as spiders [65,66,67], ladybugs [68,69], mantids [70], predatory mites [71], and parasitoid wasps [72] have also been investigated for their use as biological control agents.
Arthropods are an estimated 85% of all soil-dwelling fauna and play a central role in nutrient cycling and crop productivity [73]. They indirectly exert a positive force through their contributions to soil health. Negatively, the age-old struggle against crop damage has continually shaped human innovation from the past to the present. Evidence of negative insect impacts on early human societies can be traced back to the Ancient Sumerians, who used sulfur compounds to control insects and mites, and the Greek poet Homer referenced burning as a strategy for locust management [74]. These struggles predate the expansion of human agriculture (~4200 BCE [75]) and remain major challenges today.
Advances in both technology- and arthropod-based solutions show promise for combating insect pests. Bisgin et al. (2022) [76], for example, developed an AI algorithm capable of identifying food-contaminating beetles, enabling more accurate risk assessment and targeted management strategies. Modern insecticides increasingly emphasize environmental sustainability and allow for more controlled release and reduced ecological impact [77,78]. On the arthropod-solution side, Barragán-Fonseca et al. (2022) [79] demonstrated that incorporating black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (Linnaeus, 1758), exuviae into soil increased plant biomass, flower number, pollinator attraction, and seed yield, while also enhancing tolerance to herbivory. Beyond agriculture, black soldier flies, along with crickets, mealworms, grasshoppers, and house fly maggots, are also increasingly recognized as sustainable sources of animal feed, providing essential nutrition while reducing the need for high-resource-demand livestock feed such as soybeans [80,81]. From ancient pest management practices to cutting-edge technologies and sustainable food innovations, arthropods remain central to agricultural challenges and solutions alike.

2.4. Arthropods and Materials

Many of our finest materials are thanks to arthropods. Silk, for example, has long been leveraged for applications from luxury textiles to industrial packaging [79], parachutes, and even tissue repair (see also Arthropods and Medicine) [80]. Spider silk continues to attract researchers because of its strength, flexibility, durability, humidity response, light transmission, thermal conductance, and shape memory [82], and modern advances in textiles continue to utilize these properties [83,84]. Arthropod exoskeletons are also known for being tough and rigid, yet lightweight and durable. Researchers are even exploring sustainable bioplastics based on arthropod exoskeletons, which could be useful for biodegradable packaging, injectable fillers, 3D printing ink, wound dressing, and implantable devices [85].
The fine structures of arthropods have also led to advances in optics and nanomaterials. Butterfly wing scales are made of hyperfine structures to reflect vivid colors that attract mates [86], ward off predators [87,88], and aid in camouflage [89]. These nanostructures are models for research into optical detection through refractivity and could be applied to water-quality monitoring and analysis [90]. The structure of blue morpho butterfly wings (Morpho Menelaus) has also inspired new infrared detection technology [91], as well as vapor sensors with applications towards high-performance gas separators and photonic security tags [92]. Similarly, beetle iridescence has also been studied for its colorful and strength-based properties, resulting in biomimetic materials [93] that can be applied to durable coatings [94], buildings [95], and adhesives [96,97,98]. The sound production organ of cicadas has even been an inspiration for novel designs of acoustic transducers [99]. Ultimately, arthropods have given rise to many breakthroughs in material science [100], offering nature-based design principles with a multitude of examples yet to be explored.

2.5. Arthropods and Technology

Arthropods have both an ancient and modern history of inspiring human tools and technology. From flight and locomotory mechanics to sensory systems, arthropods provide natural blueprints for modern advances in technology. Drone technology, for example, has improved its aerodynamic performance by mimicking the kinetics of wing flapping in 3D space [101], while the Moroccan flic-flac spider (Cebrennus rechenbergi (Jäger 2014) [102]) serves as a model of locomotion over sand and snow with its rapid cartwheels down sand dunes [103]. Similarly, the cockroach’s prowess at moving through tight spaces has inspired the development of search-and-rescue applications following natural disasters through robots that mimic cockroach locomotion [6]. Insect neuronal networks are even being studied and mimicked with the goal of improving processing capacity at small scales and integrating novel AI strategies into autonomous robots [104].
Arthropod sensory systems are diverse and often times highly specialized, providing a wealth of biodesign blueprints. Cameras with extreme depth have been inspired by the compound eye of extinct trilobites [105], while jumping spider eyes inspired endoscope dual cameras with a wide-angle field of view and increased resolution [106]. Furthermore, insect compound eyes have inspired motion sensors for autonomous vehicles to detect surroundings [107]. With olfaction, scientists have employed AI to determine the neural patterns associated with odor sensing to be used in narcotic detection and disease biomarkers [108], while a sensor inspired by selective insect olfaction is being explored for a function in detecting human disease (through breath) [109]. Like the other categories above, numerous opportunities exist for additional arthropod-inspired technological innovations that can address grand challenges.

3. Arthropods in Grand Challenges

Arthropods have weathered more than 500 million years of Earth’s grand challenges—from mass extinctions to climate upheavals—emerging each time with novel adaptations that allow them to manipulate their environments, outcompete rivals, and radiate into nearly every ecological niche. Throughout human history, they have played critical roles in helping us overcome our own challenges—from pollination and decomposition to inspiring medical and materials innovations. Their resilience, diversity, and biological ingenuity make them ideal partners—and platforms—for developing solutions to today’s pressing local and global challenges in human and environmental health.
Grand challenges are some of the world’s most difficult-to-solve problems, spanning cultures and continents, distinguished from traditional research questions by their complexity, emergent properties, nonlinear dynamics, and numerous interactions and interconnections [110,111]. Commonly identified modern grand challenges include climate change and environmental sustainability; global health and pandemics; poverty, inequality, and social justice; ethical technological advances (e.g., artificial intelligence); energy security; food and water security; global governance, peace, and safety; education, workforce development, and knowledge access; and/or infrastructure and urban resilience.
In human health, arthropods are responsible for transmitting a variety of pathogens that result in severe morbidity and mortality in humans and agricultural animals [112]. Mosquitoes alone transmit pathogens that are collectively responsible for nearly one million deaths worldwide every year, and most deaths are concentrated in developing nations and impoverished communities [113]. Seven of the Gates Foundation Global Grand Challenges center on mosquitoes, with an emphasis on preventing and eradicating malaria [114]. The Entomological Society of America [115] and Royal Entomological Society [116] both list combatting vector-borne diseases as a grand challenge. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) specifically lists the detection of mosquito breeding grounds among its grand challenges [117].
Food security is another grand challenge in which arthropods play a critical dual role. As pests, invasive insects cost the United States US 126.42 billion annually, with most of the cost associated with agriculture [118]. As beneficial animals, insects are increasingly seen as a potential sustainable solution to global hunger and to reduce emissions from traditional meat production [119], which accounts for approximately 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [120]. More than 2200 species of insects—including grasshoppers, beetles, and ants—have been identified as edible for both humans and livestock [25]. Organizations and institutions such as the University of California Davis, Cornell University, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Society for Animal Science list food security amongst their targeted grand challenges, citing the role of arthropods as agricultural pests as well as potential sustainable solutions as food for both humans and animals.
Arthropods have always been intertwined with human innovation and addressing humanity’s grand challenges, but their potential for influence may soon be overlooked. As we have demonstrated, humans have a history of overcoming challenges with bioinspired solutions—solutions inspired by biological structures or processes [121]. Yet, as the need for innovative solutions grows, we face a time of unprecedented biodiversity loss [122,123] and a decline in human connection with nature [124]. In reducing our connection with nature, we risk suffering an “extinction of experience” whereby we become increasingly unfamiliar with the natural world [125,126,127]. Furthermore, in the throes of the Anthropocene, arthropods in particular are facing a significant and concerning decline [128,129]—a loss even non-scholars have noticed, sometimes dubbed the ‘windshield phenomenon’ [130,131], which is a poignant nod to drivers feeling there are fewer insects on their windshield after traveling. As species are confronted with decline and extinction, coupled with an increasing human disconnect from the natural world, the devastating result is that we risk overlooking arthropods not only as ecological keystones, but also as powerful sources of solution-based biomimicry and biodesign.
The complexity of grand challenges dictates that no single discipline can meaningfully provide solutions [110,132,133,134]. Critically, leveraging arthropods for bioinspired research and discovery requires an integrated group of individuals encompassing distinct and diverse areas of expertise, experiences, and outlooks. Solving grand challenges means acknowledging and simultaneously addressing the complexity and interconnected nature of the problems—including the social and environmental factors (e.g., social support, politics), individual factors (e.g., a single person’s risk factors), and biological factors (e.g., physiological pathways, genetic factors [135]). Grand solutions require dismantling traditional academic silos and building a transdisciplinary approach that fosters collaboration across scientific, technological, social, and ecological domains. It requires an integrative approach to problem-solving that extends beyond disciplinary boundaries to co-create new knowledge and new solutions. We define transdisciplinary as academic and non-academic (e.g., community members, policy makers, and industry experts) collaborators operating beyond their respective disciplines for formulating shared questions and working within a shared framework [135,136,137]. Such a transdisciplinary approach is not easily achieved, as it requires not only a willingness to engage with different kinds of expertise but also a shared framework that can serve as a common ground for inquiry, experimentation, and innovation. Transdisciplinary research is more than aligning around a shared problem—it is about realizing a collective vision through a shared framework, where diverse expertise integrates to address complex questions.

4. Models for Developing Arthropod-Focused Transdisciplinary Research Innovation

The application of arthropods to solve grand challenges is boundless, but building transdisciplinary research teams is challenging. Our currently siloed research and education institutions make it difficult to connect scholars from distinct areas of expertise. While many researchers may be interested in collaboration across disciplines, such collaboration is hindered by departmental silos, cultural divides, and discipline-specific jargon and methodology [138,139,140]. Nonetheless, networking, expansive funding calls, and grassroots collaboration efforts, such as facilitated brainstorming workshops, can help build cross-disciplinary bridges and collaborative teams.
We conceptualize three main models of arthropod-focused research teams: (1) those built around a focal, pressing challenge—e.g., vector-borne disease or food insecurity; (2) those built around one focal group of organisms (e.g., spiders and their silk); or (3) those more fluid with respect to challenges and focal organisms (e.g., encompassing arthropods and challenges broadly). Furthermore, these teams can form at multiple scales—e.g., within an institution or community, encompassing multiple institutions/communities within a geographic region, and/or internationally/globally.
While the type of arthropod-focused research team (i.e., solution-based and challenge-focused, taxon-focused, or inclusive of multiple taxa and challenges) and scale of the team (local, regional, or global) may vary, they all require the same foundation. They need researchers and community members who are (i) open to new ideas, (ii) willing to expand their work beyond their comfort zone, and most importantly, (iii) open to, and excited by, collaboration.

4.1. Challenge-Focused Research Teams

Many topic- or challenge-specific research teams have already built successful, federally funded collaborations around arthropods. The Center for Vector-Borne Infectious Disease at Colorado State, for example, focuses on infectious disease, while the University of Florida and the University of Kentucky’s Center for Arthropod Management Technologies bring together university researchers, government, and industry partners to find solutions for arthropod pests of agricultural, medical, and veterinary importance. The Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming is composed of faculty from Texas A&M, Indiana University–Purdue, and Mississippi State University, with a focus on developing methods for using insects as feed for livestock, poultry, and aquaculture. Region-specific teams include the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology at the University of Nairobi. The mission of this latter center is to reduce poverty, ensure food security, and improve the health of people of the tropics through local and international collaboration aimed at developing management tools for harmful and useful arthropods. These established and impactful arthropod research centers provide a strong foundation for transforming how communities approach grand challenges. Notably, in many instances, federal funding calls have facilitated the formation of these research centers. We both advise and hope for the continuation and even expansion of such forward-thinking funding opportunities.

4.2. Taxon-Focused Research Teams

Instead of focusing on specific challenges, a specific taxon-centered research team may explore challenges and innovations through a focal organism or group of organisms. A focus on spiders, for example, could explore biomedical innovations associated with both venom and silk, while simultaneously investigating spiders’ roles in ecosystem services [7]. Similarly, black soldier flies could provide research opportunities in waste management, sustainable animal feed, bio-based material innovation, soil health and carbon sequestration, human and animal health, and genetic engineering. Research groups such as the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Honey Bee Research Center use this taxon-centered approach to conduct research on environmental health and outreach through honeybees. Again, funding opportunities to support broad taxon-focused research are imperative for associated bioinspired discovery and innovation.

4.3. Open-Ended Research Teams

Finally, a more fluid research group may unite over the simple idea of arthropods (inclusive of any focal taxon) as inspiration for novel solutions to multiple local/global challenges and scientific advances. Such an innovative open-ended approach to team building offers limitless opportunities for community buy-in. For example, biomedical engineers working on innovating biomaterials and nucleic acid delivery systems to advance gene and cell therapies or vaccine strategies might be inspired toward innovative design solutions from their collaborations with researchers studying mosquito–virus systems. Or chemists working on biosensors for environmental contaminants might find inspiration from collaborators researching chemical receptors present in hymenopterans. Meanwhile, entomologists investigating potential sensory-related deterrents of agricultural pests can be inspired by an arachnologist studying sensory modalities used in spider courtship. We propose that this third approach represents a pioneering method to form teams, to share knowledge, and to address grand challenges by creating a community that studies multiple taxa through a variety of expertise and skillset lenses, allowing siloed disciplines to converge, integrate, and brainstorm. We expand on these ideas in the next section.

5. Arthropods and Transdisciplinary Research

Transdisciplinary teams that unite broadly around arthropods, without a defined challenge or goal (i.e., open-ended research teams), offer numerous opportunities for scientific advances through the unique communities they can build. First, despite being broad, such nature-based unification still provides both a reason to come together and a source of solution-based inspiration. It ensures that research and ideation are centered on a common ground that enables mutual learning, innovation, and synergistic discovery. Second, a shared system acts as a living skeleton supporting different perspectives—whether ecological, economical, biological, mechanical, behavioral, or artistic—that can interact productively and iteratively [141,142]. Coalescing around arthropods reduces barriers to collaboration by providing a common theme and a shared structure for inquiry. Third, an open-ended approach widens the net for capturing different methodologies and questions.
Notably, arthropods are not just a bridge for connecting disciplines, but a means of connecting cultures, and thus, connecting collaborators on a more holistic level. Arthropods inspire public fascination, facilitating accessible education in multiple settings, including formal classrooms, museums, and community science projects (such as iNaturalist). The ecological, cultural, and economic impacts of arthropods set a strong foundation for buy-in across collaborators. From bioindicators [9] and pollinators [31,32] to textiles [83], wax, food [25], and medicine [42,52,56], inspiration for architecture [95], machines, materials [100], and art [11], every person is touched by arthropods in their daily lives [11]. Every model organism comes with benefits and disadvantages, but arthropods’ combination of diversity and cultural relevance is difficult to match. They provide a natural bridge between disciplines and cultures, offering collaborators a shared point of reference that is both scientifically rich and socially meaningful.
Using arthropods broadly as a centering point provides innumerable paths to appeal to and recruit different researchers and community members, whether drawn in by their personal interests (e.g., a love of butterflies or a family member with Lyme disease) and/or specific areas of expertise (e.g., robotics). It increases the likelihood of buy-in from a diverse group of individuals to provide new perspectives, affords almost limitless ways to engage within academic and local communities, and increases the chances for leadership roles and/or influencing research directions for each team member. Diversifying and expanding the team increases available knowledge (organismal and more), skillsets, and toolkits available for each system and individual researchers. A broad arthropod-focused research and education community also increases the likelihood that any knowledge gains, technological advances, or other breakthroughs in one system can advance research in another, whether through direct methodology transfers or by igniting curiosity and innovation in another system.
Leveraging arthropod biology and resilience for bioinspired breakthroughs, innovation, and problem-solving necessitates new knowledge gain, as it minimally requires (a) taxon-specific information about arthropod ecology and behavior; (b) identification, development, and testing of arthropod-derived or -inspired materials; (c) innovations in husbandry and large-scale production of arthropods; and (d) the intersection of arthropods and humanity through education, community engagement, and art. Meeting these requirements lends to the necessity of more than isolated projects. It will require, for example, engineers to learn from arachnologists about the numerous distinct types of spider silk and their many natural functions, or virologists to learn from entomologists about mating or feeding behavior in arthropod vectors. In today’s expansive and siloed research enterprise, we propose that major future advances and innovations will require true transdisciplinary teamwork. It will call for a community of researchers connected through a shared framework that is inspired and guided by one of nature’s most amazing groups of animals—arthropods.

6. Summary and Strategic Next Steps

Arthropods—with their immense biodiversity, ecological ubiquity, evolutionary resilience, and application across disciplines—offer abundant opportunities for integrative research. Arthropods inhabit nearly every ecosystem on Earth, often in high densities, and their diverse morphologies and life histories present both challenges and opportunities for humanity. Despite the evolutionary problem-solving of arthropods that allows them to thrive in a wide range of environments, arthropods remain underutilized in efforts to discover novel solutions to global challenges through a transdisciplinary framework. We argue that open-ended research teams can, and should, serve as a powerful model system for uniting diverse groups of researchers to address pressing issues in health, sustainability, technology, and beyond. Grounding collaboration in this shared biological framework can foster interdisciplinary connections, inspire innovative research, and support the development of holistic, scalable, and equitable solutions.
A transdisciplinary research community with comprehensive integration of research, educational programs, and community-building approaches centered on arthropods would be well-positioned to undertake solution-oriented collaborations. Such a community could encompass a spectrum of arthropod-related disciplines, including vector-borne disease, agriculture, environmental health, nutrition, robotics, sensors, arts, education, and materials innovation, and organically extend to community-building approaches, including mentorship models, cross-sector partnerships, and outreach programs led by and for local community members. The arthropod-centered transdisciplinary community could act as a hub for cutting-edge research while simultaneously being a vibrant connector that engages students, professionals, and the public through symposia, workshops, and educational courses. This nexus would purposefully align arthropod-related research with human and environmental health, feeding directly into a pipeline for innovation in arthropod-derived and use-inspired materials innovation.
While this paper focuses on arthropods, the proposed transdisciplinary framework built around a natural model system is broadly applicable. Other resilient and diverse taxa—such as fungi, coral reefs, or cephalopods—hold great potential as unifying systems for transdisciplinary research. These organisms, like arthropods, span ecological, evolutionary, and technological relevance, offering rich opportunities to address complex global challenges through integrated inquiry. Thus, we encourage researchers across all disciplines to reach beyond comfort and meaningfully engage with their academic and local communities through a central model system, integrating and expanding each other’s knowledge and skill sets to confront humanity’s greatest challenges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K., N.R.S., A.K.P. and E.A.H.; funding acquisition, N.R.S., A.K.P. and E.A.H.; visualization, J.K.; writing—original draft, J.K.; writing—review and editing, J.K., N.R.S., A.K.P. and E.A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of Nebraska-Lincoln Grand Challenges Competition.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Community for Arthropod Research Engineering and Materials Innovation (CAREMI) for their thoughtful discussions and ideas; Carrie Kappel from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for facilitating brainstorming and research jams; and Michael Bergland-Riese from the UNL Center for Science, Mathematics and Computer Education for facilitation and brainstorming. The authors used ChatGPT 4.0 for the purposes of generating intial ideas on examples of arthropod innovation in Section 2 “A Brief Glance at Arthropod Importance and Innovation”, and conducted a literature search for relevant citations through AI-generated suggestions. ChatGPT was also used to search for literature on human disconnect with nature, leading to citations [125,126,127]. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Giribet, G.; Edgecombe, G.D. The Invertebrate Tree of Life; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-691-17025-1. [Google Scholar]
  2. U.S. Geological Survey. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS); U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2013.
  3. Zhang, Z.-Q. Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-Level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013). In Zootaxa; Magnolia Press: Auckland, New Zealand, 2013; Volume 3703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stork, N.E. How Many Species of Insects and Other Terrestrial Arthropods Are There on Earth? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Xiang, H.; Liu, X.; Li, M.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, L.; Cui, Y.; Liu, L.; Fang, G.; Qian, H.; Xu, A.; et al. The Evolutionary Road from Wild Moth to Domestic Silkworm. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 1268–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jayaram, K.; Full, R.J. Cockroaches Traverse Crevices, Crawl Rapidly in Confined Spaces, and Inspire a Soft, Legged Robot. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E950–E957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cardoso, P.; Pekár, S.; Birkhofer, K.; Chuang, A.; Fukushima, C.S.; Hebets, E.A.; Henaut, Y.; Hesselberg, T.; Malumbres-Olarte, J.; Michálek, O.; et al. Ecosystem Services Provided by Spiders. Biol. Rev. 2025, 100, 2217–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dangles, O.; Casas, J. Ecosystem Services Provided by Insects for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chowdhury, S.; Dubey, V.K.; Choudhury, S.; Das, A.; Jeengar, D.; Sujatha, B.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, N.; Semwal, A.; Kumar, V. Insects as Bioindicator: A Hidden Gem for Environmental Monitoring. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1146052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schowalter, T.D.; Noriega, J.A.; Tscharntke, T. Insect Effects on Ecosystem Services—Introduction. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2018, 26, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Klein, B.A. The Insect Epiphany: How Our Six-Legged Allies Shape Human Culture; Timber Press: New York, NY, USA, 2024; ISBN 978-1-64326-136-2. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bellen, H.J.; Tong, C.; Tsuda, H. 100 Years of Drosophila Research and Its Impact on Vertebrate Neuroscience: A History Lesson for the Future. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010, 11, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. McGrew, W.C.; Pruetz, J.D.; Fulton, S.J. Chimpanzees Use Tools to Harvest Social Insects at Fongoli, Senegal. Folia Primatol. 2005, 76, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. McGrew, W.C. The “other Faunivory” Revisited: Insectivory in Human and Non-Human Primates and the Evolution of Human Diet. J. Hum. Evol. 2014, 71, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Backwell, L.R.; d’Errico, F. Evidence of Termite Foraging by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 1358–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Van Huis, A.; Tomberlin, J. Insects as Food and Feed: From Production to Consumption; Van Huis, A., Tomberlin, J., Eds.; Brill|Wageningen Academic: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 978-90-8686-849-0. [Google Scholar]
  17. Paoletti, M.G. (Ed.) Ecological Implications of Minilivestock; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-4822-9443-9. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mannino, M.A.; Thomas, K.D. Advances in the Archaeological Study of Invertebrate Animals and Their Products. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences; Pollard, A.M., Armitage, R.A., Makarewicz, C.A., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 769–796. ISBN 978-1-119-59204-4. [Google Scholar]
  19. Patoka, J.; Patoka, J.; Nývltová Fišáková, M.; Patoka, J.; Nývltová Fišáková, M.; Kalous, L.; Patoka, J.; Nývltová Fišáková, M.; Kalous, L.; Škrdla, P.; et al. Earliest Evidence for Human Consumption of Crayfish. Crustaceana 2014, 87, 1578–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nabais, M.; Portero, R.; Zilhão, J. Neanderthal Brown Crab Recipes: A Combined Approach Using Experimental, Archaeological and Ethnographic Evidence. Hist. Biol. 2024, 36, 1487–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meyer-Rochow, V.B.; Ghosh, S.; Jung, C. Farming of Insects for Food and Feed in South Korea: Tradition and Innovation. Berl. Münch. Tierärztl. Wochenschr. 2018, 131, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mitsuhashi, J. Insects as Traditional Foods in Japan. Ecol. Food Nutr. 1997, 36, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cohen, J.H. Eating Grasshoppers: Chapulines and the Women Who Sell Them; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 2025; ISBN 978-1-4773-3230-6. [Google Scholar]
  24. van Huis, A.; Halloran, A.; Itterbeeck, J.V.; Klunder, H.; Vantomme, P. How Many People on Our Planet Eat Insects: 2 Billion? J. Insects Food Feed. 2022, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Omuse, E.R.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Yusuf, A.A.; Machekano, H.; Egonyu, J.P.; Kimathi, E.; Mohamed, S.F.; Kassie, M.; Subramanian, S.; Onditi, J.; et al. The Global Atlas of Edible Insects: Analysis of Diversity and Commonality Contributing to Food Systems and Sustainability. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. FAO. International Markets for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2025; ISBN 978-92-5-140104-0. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pager, H. Rock Paintings in Southern Africa Showing Bees and Honey Hunting. Bee World 1973, 54, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Isack, H.A.; Reyer, H.-U. Honeyguides and Honey Gatherers: Interspecific Communication in a Symbiotic Relationship. Science 1989, 243, 1343–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vida, V.; Ferenczi, A. Trends in honey consumption and purchasing habits in the European Union. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2023, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cook, J.M.; Rasplus, J.-Y. Mutualists with Attitude: Coevolving Fig Wasps and Figs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aizen, M.A.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Cunningham, S.A.; Klein, A.M. How Much Does Agriculture Depend on Pollinators? Lessons from Long-Term Trends in Crop Production. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103, 1579–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rader, R.; Bartomeus, I.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Garratt, M.P.D.; Howlett, B.G.; Winfree, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Mayfield, M.M.; Arthur, A.D.; Andersson, G.K.S.; et al. Non-Bee Insects Are Important Contributors to Global Crop Pollination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Van Huis, A. Insects as Food and Feed, a New Emerging Agricultural Sector: A Review. J. Insects Food Feed 2020, 6, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Govorushko, S. Global Status of Insects as Food and Feed Source: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Huis, A.; Gasco, L. Insects as Feed for Livestock Production. Science 2023, 379, 138–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Islam, M.M.; Yang, C.-J. Efficacy of Mealworm and Super Mealworm Larvae Probiotics as an Alternative to Antibiotics Challenged Orally with Salmonella and E. coli Infection in Broiler Chicks. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Erickson, M.C.; Islam, M.; Sheppard, C.; Liao, J.; Doyle, M.P. Reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Chicken Manure by Larvae of the Black Soldier Fly. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hwangbo, J.; Hong, E.C.; Jang, A.; Kang, H.K.; Oh, J.S.; Kim, B.W.; Park, B.S. Utilization of House Fly-Maggots, a Feed Supplement in the Production of Broiler Chickens. J. Environ. Biol. 2009, 30, 609–614. [Google Scholar]
  39. Selvaraj, V.; Won, E. Transforming Aquaculture with Insect-Based Feed: Restraining Factors. Anim. Front. 2024, 14, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Holland, C.; Numata, K.; Rnjak-Kovacina, J.; Seib, F.P. The Biomedical Use of Silk: Past, Present, Future. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2019, 8, 1800465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Muffly, T.M.; Tizzano, A.P.; Walters, M.D. The History and Evolution of Sutures in Pelvic Surgery. J. R. Soc. Med. 2011, 104, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kasoju, N.; Bora, U. Silk Fibroin in Tissue Engineering. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2012, 1, 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Y.; Kim, H.-J.; Vunjak-Novakovic, G.; Kaplan, D.L. Stem Cell-Based Tissue Engineering with Silk Biomaterials. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 6064–6082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Melke, J.; Midha, S.; Ghosh, S.; Ito, K.; Hofmann, S. Silk Fibroin as Biomaterial for Bone Tissue Engineering. Acta Biomater. 2016, 31, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mottaghitalab, F.; Hosseinkhani, H.; Shokrgozar, M.A.; Mao, C.; Yang, M.; Farokhi, M. Silk as a Potential Candidate for Bone Tissue Engineering. J. Control. Release 2015, 215, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mosaheb, M.U.-W.F.Z.; Khan, N.A.; Siddiqui, R. Cockroaches, Locusts, and Envenomating Arthropods: A Promising Source of Antimicrobials. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2018, 21, 873–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sherman, R.A. Maggot Therapy for Treating Diabetic Foot Ulcers Unresponsive to Conventional Therapy. Diabetes Care 2003, 26, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Levin, J.; Bang, F.B. The role of endotoxin in the extracellular coagulation of limulus blood. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1964, 115, 265–274. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tamura, H.; Reich, J.; Nagaoka, I. Outstanding Contributions of LAL Technology to Pharmaceutical and Medical Science: Review of Methods, Progress, Challenges, and Future Perspectives in Early Detection and Management of Bacterial Infections and Invasive Fungal Diseases. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aufschnaiter, A.; Kohler, V.; Khalifa, S.; Abd El-Wahed, A.; Du, M.; El-Seedi, H.; Büttner, S. Apitoxin and Its Components against Cancer, Neurodegeneration and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Limitations and Possibilities. Toxins 2020, 12, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Silva, O.N.; Torres, M.D.T.; Cao, J.; Alves, E.S.F.; Rodrigues, L.V.; Resende, J.M.; Lião, L.M.; Porto, W.F.; Fensterseifer, I.C.M.; Lu, T.K.; et al. Repurposing a Peptide Toxin from Wasp Venom into Antiinfectives with Dual Antimicrobial and Immunomodulatory Properties. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 26936–26945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abd El-Wahed, A.; Yosri, N.; Sakr, H.H.; Du, M.; Algethami, A.F.M.; Zhao, C.; Abdelazeem, A.H.; Tahir, H.E.; Masry, S.H.D.; Abdel-Daim, M.M.; et al. Wasp Venom Biochemical Components and Their Potential in Biological Applications and Nanotechnological Interventions. Toxins 2021, 13, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; Lee, W.-H.; Zhang, Y. Antimicrobial Peptides from the Venom Gland of the Social Wasp Vespa tropica. Toxicon 2013, 74, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vidya, V.; Achar, R.R.; Himathi, M.U.; Akshita, N.; Kameshwar, V.H.; Byrappa, K.; Ramadas, D. Venom Peptides—A Comprehensive Translational Perspective in Pain Management. Curr. Res. Toxicol. 2021, 2, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Veiseh, M.; Gabikian, P.; Bahrami, S.-B.; Veiseh, O.; Zhang, M.; Hackman, R.C.; Ravanpay, A.C.; Stroud, M.R.; Kusuma, Y.; Hansen, S.J.; et al. Tumor Paint: A Chlorotoxin:Cy5.5 Bioconjugate for Intraoperative Visualization of Cancer Foci. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 6882–6888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Olson, J. Project Violet. Oncol. Issues 2014, 29, 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wangler, M.F.; Yamamoto, S.; Bellen, H.J. Fruit Flies in Biomedical Research. Genetics 2015, 199, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fortini, M.E.; Skupski, M.P.; Boguski, M.S.; Hariharan, I.K. A Survey of Human Disease Gene Counterparts in the Drosophila Genome. J. Cell Biol. 2000, 150, F23–F30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rubin, G.M.; Yandell, M.D.; Wortman, J.R.; Gabor, G.L.; Miklos; Nelson, C.R.; Hariharan, I.K.; Fortini, M.E.; Li, P.W.; Apweiler, R.; et al. Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes. Science 2000, 287, 2204–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adams, M.D.; Celniker, S.E.; Holt, R.A.; Evans, C.A.; Gocayne, J.D.; Amanatides, P.G.; Scherer, S.E.; Li, P.W.; Hoskins, R.A.; Galle, R.F.; et al. The Genome Sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 2000, 287, 2185–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schlegel, P.; Yin, Y.; Bates, A.S.; Dorkenwald, S.; Eichler, K.; Brooks, P.; Han, D.S.; Gkantia, M.; Dos Santos, M.; Munnelly, E.J.; et al. Whole-Brain Annotation and Multi-Connectome Cell Typing of Drosophila. Nature 2024, 634, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Riddell, E.A.; Sorensen, R.M.; McNeill, E.; Jovanović, B. Metabolic Effects of Dietary Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastic and Nanoplastic in Fruit Flies. J. Exp. Biol. 2025, 228, jeb250522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mooney, K.A.; Gruner, D.S.; Barber, N.A.; Van Bael, S.A.; Philpott, S.M.; Greenberg, R. Interactions among Predators and the Cascading Effects of Vertebrate Insectivores on Arthropod Communities and Plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 7335–7340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Paine, R.T. Food Webs: Linkage, Interaction Strength and Community Infrastructure. J. Anim. Ecol. 1980, 49, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Michalko, R.; Pekár, S.; Entling, M.H. An Updated Perspective on Spiders as Generalist Predators in Biological Control. Oecologia 2019, 189, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nyffeler, M.; Benz, G. Spiders in Natural Pest Control: A Review. J. Appl. Entomol. 1987, 103, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Michalko, R.; Pekár, S.; Dul’a, M.; Entling, M.H. Global Patterns in the Biocontrol Efficacy of Spiders: A Meta-analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2019, 28, 1366–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Obrycki, J.J.; Kring, T.J. Predaceous Coccinellidae in biological control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1998, 43, 295–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kundoo, A.; Khan, A. Coccinellids as Biological Control Agents of Soft Bodied Insects: A Review. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2017, 5, 1362–1373. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bao, K.; Zhuang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Broadley, H.J.; Fan, M.; Wang, X. Predation Efficiency of Praying Mantises as Important Natural Enemies of Spotted Lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula. Pest Manag. Sci. 2026, 82, 530–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Knapp, M.; Van Houten, Y.; Van Baal, E.; Groot, T. Use of Predatory Mites in Commercial Biocontrol: Current Status and Future Prospects. Acarologia 2018, 58, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Shi, M.; Huang, J.; Chen, X. Parasitoid Wasps as Effective Biological Control Agents. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Decaëns, T.; Jiménez, J.J.; Gioia, C.; Measey, G.J.; Lavelle, P. The Values of Soil Animals for Conservation Biology. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2006, 42, S23–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Flint, M.L.; Van Den Bosch, R. A History of Pest Control. In Introduction to Integrated Pest Management; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1981; pp. 51–81. ISBN 978-1-4615-9214-3. [Google Scholar]
  75. Monzón, M.A. Past Pests: Archaeology and the Insects around Us. Am. Entomol. 2024, 70, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bisgin, H.; Bera, T.; Wu, L.; Ding, H.; Bisgin, N.; Liu, Z.; Pava-Ripoll, M.; Barnes, A.; Campbell, J.F.; Vyas, H.; et al. Accurate Species Identification of Food-Contaminating Beetles with Quality-Improved Elytral Images and Deep Learning. Front. Artif. Intell. 2022, 5, 952424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Solanki, P.; Bhargava, A.; Chhipa, H.; Jain, N.; Panwar, J. Nano-Fertilizers and Their Smart Delivery System. In Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture; Rai, M., Ribeiro, C., Mattoso, L., Duran, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 81–101. ISBN 978-3-319-14023-0. [Google Scholar]
  78. DeRosa, M.C.; Monreal, C.; Schnitzer, M.; Walsh, R.; Sultan, Y. Nanotechnology in Fertilizers. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Barragán-Fonseca, K.Y.; Greenberg, L.O.; Gort, G.; Dicke, M.; van Loon, J.J.A. Amending Soil with Insect Exuviae Improves Herbivore Tolerance, Pollinator Attraction and Seed Yield of Brassica nigra Plants. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 342, 108219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hancz, C.; Sultana, S.; Nagy, Z.; Biró, J. The Role of Insects in Sustainable Animal Feed Production for Environmentally Friendly Agriculture: A Review. Animals 2024, 14, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sogari, G.; Amato, M.; Biasato, I.; Chiesa, S.; Gasco, L. The Potential Role of Insects as Feed: A Multi-Perspective Review. Animals 2019, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wen, D.-L.; Sun, D.-H.; Huang, P.; Huang, W.; Su, M.; Wang, Y.; Han, M.-D.; Kim, B.; Brugger, J.; Zhang, H.-X.; et al. Recent Progress in Silk Fibroin-Based Flexible Electronics. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2021, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Khan, A.Q.; Yu, K.; Li, J.; Leng, X.; Wang, M.; Zhang, X.; An, B.; Fei, B.; Wei, W.; Zhuang, H.; et al. Spider Silk Supercontraction-Inspired Cotton-Hydrogel Self-Adapting Textiles. Adv. Fiber Mater. 2022, 4, 1572–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cheng, C.; Qiu, Y.; Tang, S.; Lin, B.; Guo, M.; Gao, B.; He, B. Artificial Spider Silk Based Programmable Woven Textile for Efficient Wound Management. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2107707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wu, N.; Lin, Q.; Shao, F.; Chen, L.; Zhang, H.; Chen, K.; Wu, J.; Wang, G.; Wang, H.; Yang, Q. Insect Cuticle-Inspired Design of Sustainably Sourced Composite Bioplastics with Enhanced Strength, Toughness and Stretch-Strengthening Behavior. Carbohydr. Polym. 2024, 333, 121970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kronforst, M.R.; Young, L.G.; Kapan, D.D.; McNeely, C.; O’Neill, R.J.; Gilbert, L.E. Linkage of Butterfly Mate Preference and Wing Color Preference Cue at the Genomic Location of Wingless. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 6575–6580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vieira-Silva, A.; Evora, G.B.; Freitas, A.V.L.; Oliveira, P.S. The Relevance of Flash Coloration Against Avian Predation in a Morpho Butterfly: A Field Experiment in a Tropical Rainforest. Ethology 2024, 130, e13517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dell’aglio, D.D.; Stevens, M.; Jiggins, C.D. Avoidance of an Aposematically Coloured Butterfly by Wild Birds in a Tropical Forest. Ecol. Entomol. 2016, 41, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cheng, W.; Xing, S.; Chen, Y.; Lin, R.; Bonebrake, T.C.; Nakamura, A. Dark Butterflies Camouflaged from Predation in Dark Tropical Forest Understories. Ecol. Entomol. 2018, 43, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Han, Z.; Yang, M.; Li, B.; Mu, Z.; Niu, S.; Zhang, J.; Yang, X. Excellent Color Sensitivity of Butterfly Wing Scales to Liquid Mediums. J. Bionic Eng. 2016, 13, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, F.; Shen, Q.; Shi, X.; Li, S.; Wang, W.; Luo, Z.; He, G.; Zhang, P.; Tao, P.; Song, C.; et al. Infrared Detection Based on Localized Modification of Morpho Butterfly Wings. Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 1077–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Potyrailo, R.A.; Bonam, R.K.; Hartley, J.G.; Starkey, T.A.; Vukusic, P.; Vasudev, M.; Bunning, T.; Naik, R.R.; Tang, Z.; Palacios, M.A.; et al. Towards Outperforming Conventional Sensor Arrays with Fabricated Individual Photonic Vapour Sensors Inspired by Morpho Butterflies. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Scarangella, A.; Soldan, V.; Mitov, M. Biomimetic Design of Iridescent Insect Cuticles with Tailored, Self-Organized Cholesteric Patterns. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zeng, B.-H.; Lu, S.-H.; Hsueh, H.-W.; Fang, C.-Y.; Lin, S.-H.; Chen, Z.-X.; Cheng, Y.-L.; Wang, Y.-F.; Lin, C.-F.; Lee, R.-H.; et al. Taiwan Rhinoceros Beetle-Inspired Impact-Resistant Structures as Recoverable Antireflection Coatings. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2025, 17, 55294–55306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gorb, S.N.; Gorb, E.V. Insect-Inspired Architecture: Insects and Other Arthropods as a Source for Creative Design in Architecture. In Biomimetic Research for Architecture and Building Construction; Biologically-Inspired Systems; Knippers, J., Nickel, K.G., Speck, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 8, pp. 57–83. ISBN 978-3-319-46372-8. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ye, X.; Li, D.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Feng, X.; Huang, S.; Ma, X.; Li, J. Beetle Wing-Inspired Bio-Adhesives with Multifunctional Nanoarmor: Enhanced Performance, Biodegradability and Environmental Safety. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 520, 166092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Varenberg, M.; Gorb, S. A Beetle-Inspired Solution for Underwater Adhesion. J. R. Soc. Interface 2007, 5, 383–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Heepe, L.; Petersen, D.S.; Tölle, L.; Wolff, J.O.; Gorb, S.N. Effect of Substrate Stiffness on the Attachment Ability in Ladybird Beetles Coccinella septempunctata. In Bio-Inspired Structured Adhesives; Biologically-Inspired Systems; Heepe, L., Xue, L., Gorb, S.N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 9, pp. 47–61. ISBN 978-3-319-59113-1. [Google Scholar]
  99. Mao, J.; Yan, J.; Wang, Z.; Ke, T.; Peng, J.; Li, M.; Cheng, Q. Cicada Rib-Inspired Tough Films through Nanoconfined Crystallization for Use in Acoustic Transducers. Sci. Adv. 2025, 11, eadx9248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Schroeder, T.B.H.; Houghtaling, J.; Wilts, B.D.; Mayer, M. It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature: Functional Materials in Insects. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1705322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mordoch, L.; Sabag, E.; Ribak, G.; Pinchasik, B.-E. Insect-Inspired Drones: Adjusting the Flapping Kinetics of Insect-Inspired Wings Improves Aerodynamic Performance. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2024, 6, 2400173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jäger, P. Cebrennus Simon, 1880 (Araneae: Sparassidae): A Revisionary up-date with the Description of Four New Species and an Updated Identification Key for All Species. Zootaxa 2014, 3790, 319–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. King, R.S. BiLBIQ: A Biologically Inspired Robot with Walking and Rolling Locomotion; Biosystems & Biorobotics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-3-642-34682-8. [Google Scholar]
  104. De Croon, G.C.H.E.; Dupeyroux, J.J.G.; Fuller, S.B.; Marshall, J.A.R. Insect-Inspired AI for Autonomous Robots. Sci. Robot. 2022, 7, eabl6334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fan, Q.; Xu, W.; Hu, X.; Zhu, W.; Yue, T.; Zhang, C.; Yan, F.; Chen, L.; Lezec, H.J.; Lu, Y.; et al. Trilobite-Inspired Neural Nanophotonic Light-Field Camera with Extreme Depth-of-Field. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tonet, O.; Focacci, F.; Piccigallo, M.; Mattei, L.; Quaglia, C.; Megali, G.; Mazzolai, B.; Dario, P. Bioinspired Robotic Dual-Camera System for High-Resolution Vision. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2008, 24, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Serres, J.R.; Viollet, S. Insect-Inspired Vision for Autonomous Vehicles. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 30, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Abbasi, J. Bird Flu Outbreak in Dairy Cows Is Widespread, Raising Public Health Concerns. JAMA 2024, 331, 1789–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Srinivasan, B.; Phani, A.; Mu, X.; Kim, K.; Park, S.; Kim, S. Tracking Molecular Signatures at Ppb Sensitivity Using Fluctuational Kinetics in Metal–Organic Frameworks. Nano Lett. 2025, 25, 7924–7932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ferraro, F.; Etzion, D.; Gehman, J. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organ. Stud. 2015, 36, 363–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ika, L.A.; Munro, L.T. Tackling Grand Challenges with Projects: Five Insights and a Research Agenda for Project Management Theory and Practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2022, 40, 601–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lefèvre, T.; Sauvion, N.; Almeida, R.P.P.; Fournet, F.; Alout, H. The Ecological Significance of Arthropod Vectors of Plant, Animal, and Human Pathogens. Trends Parasitol. 2022, 38, 404–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Caraballo, H.; King, K. Emergency Department Management of Mosquito-Borne Illness: Malaria, Dengue, and West Nile Virus. Emerg. Med. Pract. 2014, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  114. Walgate, R. Gates Foundation Picks 14 Grand Challenges for Global Disease Research. Bull. World Health Organ. 2003, 81, 915–916. [Google Scholar]
  115. Entomological Society of America. A Grand Challenge Agenda for Entomology Initiatives; Entomological Society of America: Annapolis, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  116. Luke, S.H.; Roy, H.E.; Thomas, C.D.; Tilley, L.A.N.; Ward, S.; Watt, A.; Carnaghi, M.; Jaworski, C.C.; Tercel, M.P.T.G.; Woodrow, C.; et al. Grand Challenges in Entomology: Priorities for Action in the Coming Decades. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2023, 16, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. National Academy of Engineering. Nae Grand Challenges for Engineering; National Academy of Engineering: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  118. Fantle-Lepczyk, J.E.; Haubrock, P.J.; Kramer, A.M.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Turbelin, A.J.; Crystal-Ornelas, R.; Diagne, C.; Courchamp, F. Economic Costs of Biological Invasions in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 151318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture, Ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107920-1. [Google Scholar]
  121. Wang, Y.; Naleway, S.E.; Wang, B. Biological and Bioinspired Materials: Structure Leading to Functional and Mechanical Performance. Bioact. Mater. 2020, 5, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Isbell, F.; Balvanera, P.; Mori, A.S.; He, J.; Bullock, J.M.; Regmi, G.R.; Seabloom, E.W.; Ferrier, S.; Sala, O.E.; Guerrero-Ramírez, N.R.; et al. Expert Perspectives on Global Biodiversity Loss and Its Drivers and Impacts on People. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2023, 21, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Jaureguiberry, P.; Titeux, N.; Wiemers, M.; Bowler, D.E.; Coscieme, L.; Golden, A.S.; Guerra, C.A.; Jacob, U.; Takahashi, Y.; Settele, J.; et al. The Direct Drivers of Recent Global Anthropogenic Biodiversity Loss. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabm9982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Richardson, M. Modelling Nature Connectedness Within Environmental Systems: Human-Nature Relationships from 1800 to 2020 and Beyond. Earth 2025, 6, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human–Nature Interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kesebir, S.; Kesebir, P. A Growing Disconnection from Nature Is Evident in Cultural Products. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 12, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. DeVille, N.V.; Tomasso, L.P.; Stoddard, O.P.; Wilt, G.E.; Horton, T.H.; Wolf, K.L.; Brymer, E.; Kahn, P.H.; James, P. Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Hallmann, C.A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wagner, D.L.; Grames, E.M.; Forister, M.L.; Berenbaum, M.R.; Stopak, D. Insect Decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a Thousand Cuts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2023989118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vogel, G. Where Have All the Insects Gone? Science 2017, 356, 576–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Goulson, D. The Insect Apocalypse, and Why It Matters. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R967–R971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. De Grandis, G.; Efstathiou, S. Introduction—Grand Challenges and Small Steps. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part C Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 2016, 56, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Gehman, J.; Etzion, D.; Ferraro, F. Robust Action: Advancing a Distinctive Approach to Grand Challenges. In Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2022; Volume 79, pp. 259–278. ISBN 978-1-83909-829-1. [Google Scholar]
  134. Lieberknecht, K.; Houser, H.; Rabinowitz, A.; Pierce, S.A.; Rodríguez, L.; Leite, F.; Lowell, J.; Gray, J.N. Creating Meeting Grounds for Transdisciplinary Climate Research: The Role of Humanities and Social Sciences in Grand Challenges. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2023, 48, 585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Gehlert, S.; Murray, A.; Sohmer, D.; McClintock, M.; Conzen, S.; Olopade, O. The Importance of Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Understanding and Resolving Health Disparities. Soc. Work Public Health 2010, 25, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. National Research Council. Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 18722. ISBN 978-0-309-30151-0. [Google Scholar]
  137. Meeth, L.R. Interdisciplinary Studies: A Matter of Definition. Change Mag. High. Learn. 1978, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Building Bridges in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences. Barriers to Interdisciplinary Research and Training. In Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences; Pellmar, T., Eisenberg, L., Eds.; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  139. Newman, J. Cultural Barriers to Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration: Evidence from Australia. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. The Real Type and Ideal Type of Transdisciplinary Processes: Part II—What Constraints and Obstacles Do We Meet in Practice? Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 653–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Jerome, L.W.; Paterson, S.K.; Von Stamm, B.; Richert, K. Making Transdisciplinarity Work for Complex Systems: A Dynamic Model for Blending Diverse Knowledges. Futures 2024, 161, 103415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Gray, B. Enhancing Transdisciplinary Research Through Collaborative Leadership. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, S124–S132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.