The ability of rufous hummingbirds Selasphorus rufus to dilute and concentrate urine

Most terrestrial animals face the challenge of having to conserve water in a desiccating environment. Not surprisingly, the ability to produce concentrated urine has been relatively well studied in birds. Nectar-feeding birds are unusual among terrestrial animals in that they often ingest and excrete prodigious water volumes to obtain adequate energy. Thus, they confront the unusual challenge of having to conserve electrolytes. The diluting abilities of birds and the renal mechanisms that may correlate with them have been relatively neglected. To elucidate diluting and concentrating abilities in nectar-feeding birds, we fed rufous hummingbirds Selasphorus rufus an electrolyte-free nectar and a nectar containing a range of NaCl concentrations. Hummingbirds had a spectacular (and possibly unique) diluting ability: when fed on electrolyte-free food they produced excreta containing less than 0.5 mM l⁻¹ each of sodium and potassium. Hummingbirds also had a poor concentrating ability, retaining sodium and chloride when their food (0.632 M l⁻¹ sucrose) contained more than 35 mM l⁻¹ of NaCl. The kidneys of hummingbirds do not appear to be suited for concentrating urine, and possibly contain structural features that give them a unique diluting ability compared with those of birds that do not feed on nectar.     

The foraging behaviour of Australian honeyeaters: a review and some comparisons with hummingbirds

The foraging behaviour of Australian honeyeaters is reviewed in terms of diet, foraging selectivity, foraging flight mode, quality and quantity of nectar encountered per flower, flower densities encountered and effect of predation. At the same time comparisons are made between honeyeaters and hummingbirds. These two groups of birds are superficially similar. Both feed on nectar and insects. Both tend to have long curved bills and tongues adapted for removal of nectar from flowers. Both tend to feed at long, red flowers. However, on close inspection, honeyeaters and hummingbirds are quite dissimilar. For example, many honeyeaters include fruit in their diets. Hummingbirds almost never eat fruit. Honeyeaters appear to be considerably less nectarivorous and more insectivorous than hummingbirds. Honeyeaters are, for the most part, larger than hummingbirds and they usually perch while feeding whereas hummingbirds usually hover. Honeyeaters but not hummingbirds often flock while feeding. Predation appears to be considerably more important for honeyeaters than for hummingbirds. Territorial defense of flowers seems common in hummingbirds but uncommon in honeyeaters. These differences are discussed in detail and explanations are offered for them wherever possible.     

Energy regulation by traplining hummingbirds

1. A published model of constant diurnal energy accumulation by territorial hummingbirds does not accurately reflect the temporal distribution of feeding behaviour of traplining hummingbirds, Phaethornis longirostris (Long-Tailed Hermit Hummingbirds).
2. In an enclosure study, gross nectar intake by P . longirostris decreased through the day, mirroring nectar production rates in its natural food-flowers and mimicking its natural foraging patterns.
3. Using a simulation model, the energetic consequences of constant and decreasing net energy intake rates for traplining hummingbirds are compared.
4. Given natural patterns of nectar production, model birds with decreasing diurnal net intake rates met their energetic needs with fewer flowers than those with constant net intake, and spent less time foraging.
5. It is concluded that P . longirostris do not satisfy the physiological assumptions of the published model, and that in this way they are different from the territorial species on which the model has previously been tested.     

COMPETITION BETWEEN HERMIT HUMMINGBIRDS PHAETHORNINAE AND INSECTS FOR NECTAR IN A COSTA RICAN RAIN FOREST

Hummingbirds in the tropical rainforests of southwestern Costa Rica face intense competition from stingless bees Trigona that steal nectar from hummingbird flowers. Here we document both interference and exploitative competition between bees and hummingbirds at scarlet, hummingbird pollinated flowers of Passiflora vitifolia. Aggressive stingless bees prevented Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbirds Phaethornis superciliosus from feeding at nearly one-third of the passion flowers approached. In exclusion experiments, bees and hummingbirds each removed most of the nectar from treated flowers. Experimental exclusion of bees also increased hummingbird use of both natural and artificial flowers.     

Resource use,energetic profitability,and behavioral decisions in migrant rufous hummingbirds

Summary Migrant Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) defend nectar resources at stopover sites while replenishing fat reserves needed for migratory flights. During late summer in the Sandia Mountains, central New Mexico, they defend the wasp- and bee-pollinated Scrophularia montana from other hummingbirds. Both hummingbirds and hymenopterans exploit Scrophularia nectar during the early part of its flowering period. As summer colony growth increases the densities of the eusocial hymenopterans by 100–150%, their exploitation of Scrophularia nectar lowers its mean standing crop in flowers by 200–300%. Sometime during the summer, Rufous Hummingbirds abandon and do not further use this resource for the remaining 3–4 weeks of its flowering period. The abandonment always occurs when the mean standing crop of nectar is approximately 0.2–0.3 L/ flower. This paper describes a model of Rufous Hummingbird energetics, that shows abandonment occurred 1–3 days after they passed the threshold at which the resource could have provided their minimum daily energy requirements. I suggest that constraints imposed by a highly competitive social environment severely reduced the options available to the hummingbirds, and caused them to continue to defend a resource that could no longer meet their energetic requirements.     

Observational Learning in the White-Eared Hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis): Experimental Evidence

The adoption of new food resources can be facilitated by the ability to learn through observation of other individuals who use them. This behavior, termed observational learning, applies to any problem solving in which a naive individual who has observed an experienced individual learns a behavior faster than another who has not. Hummingbirds consume nectar from flowers of a large number of plant species, which are very diverse in morphology and color. During their local or migratory movements, they can observe the use of floral resources by conspecifics and heterospecifics which may change their foraging preferences. Although there is evidence that hummingbirds can use observational learning to exploit new floral resources, it is necessary to generate additional information by studying different hummingbird species. In this work, the learning performance of White‐eared hummingbirds (Hylocharis leucotis) was studied in the presence or absence of a knowledgeable tutor. In a first experiment, naïve hummingbirds learned to feed on arrays of artificial flower of two colors: red (previously known resource) and yellow (novel resource), where only one color had nectar. Naive hummingbirds visited red flowers faster and more often than rewarded yellow flowers. Individuals with the best performance on each color were further trained to ensure that they only visited flowers of a specific color, and were then used as tutors in the next experiment, in which new naive hummingbirds, caged individually, were allowed to observe them foraging on the artificial arrays. These naïve individual were then exposed alone to the same array used by their tutor. Tutored hummingbirds learned to feed faster and more frequently from nectar‐containing flowers of the array than naive individuals. Likewise, all tutored individuals only visited flowers of the color that had been previously visited by their tutors. This study provides experimental evidence that hummingbirds taken directly from the field can use observational learning as an efficient strategy to access new floral resources.     

Hummingbirds pay a high cost for a warm drink

Endotherms must warm ingested food to body temperature. Food warming costs may be especially high for nectar-feeding birds, which can ingest prodigious volumes. We formulated a mathematical model to predict the cost of warming nectar as a function of nectar temperature and sugar concentration. This model predicts that the cost of warming nectar should: (1) decrease as a power function of nectar concentration, and (2) increase linearly with the difference between body temperature and nectar temperature. We tested our model on rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). A typical experiment consisted of feeding birds nectar of a given concentration at 39°C (equivalent to body temperature) and then at 4°C, and vice versa. We used the percentage change in metabolic rate between the two food temperatures to estimate the cost of warming nectar. The model's predictions were accurately met. When birds had to hover rather than perch during feeding bouts, estimated food-warming costs were only slightly lower. The cost of warming nectar to body temperature appears to be an important yet overlooked aspect of the energy budgets of nectar-feeding birds. Hummingbirds feeding on 5% sucrose solutions at 4^oC have to increase their metabolic rate by an amount equivalent to that elicited by a 15°C drop in ambient temperature.Abbreviations AE assimilation efficiency - C nectar concentration - H' cost of warming food to body temperature - SDA specific dynamic action - T_a ambient temperature - T_b body temperature - T_n nectar temperatureCommunicated by: G. Heldmaier     

Bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds: A review of morphology,function and performance,with intercontinental comparisons

The bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds differ from continent to continent. The major differences are that: (i) the tongues of A Australian honeyeaters are broader any more fimbricated at the tip than the bifurcated tongues of sunbirds and hummingbirds; (ii) the bills of hummingbirds are more uniformly narrow and taper less markedly towards their tips than those of sun-birds and honeyeaters; and (iii) bill curvatures are generally greater for sunbirds and honey-creepers than for hummingbirds. A variety of hummingbirds has straight or even slightly upturned bills, while bills for all sunbirds, honeycreepers and honeyeaters are decurved to some extent. Despite differences in tongue morphology, hummingbirds, sunbirds and honeyeaters extract nectar at a similar range of rates, averaging approximately 40 γL s^?1 from ad libitum feeders, and 1–15 γL^?1 from flowers. All tongues collect nectar by capillarity, with licking rates of 6–17 s^?1. Licking behaviour has been little studied, although speeds of licking respond to changes in sugar concentration and corolla length. The tongues of honeyeaters are broad, and may need to be brush-tipped in order to allow capillary collection of nectar. Brush-tipped tongues can cover large surface areas on each lick, and may allow honeyeaters to exploit nectar and honeydew that is thinly spread over large surface areas. Bill lengths of nectarivorous birds are similar in all regions, though species of hummingbird have the shortest and longest bills. Bill lengths largely determine the range of floral lengths that can be legitimately probed. Maximum floral lengths exceed bill lengths, since hummingbirds, sunbirds and honeyeaters protrude their tongues beyond the tips of their bills. Rates of nectar extraction, however, decline rapidly once the floral length exceeds bill length. Decurved bills may have evolved in honeyeaters and sunbirds to enable perching birds to reach flowers at the ends of branches more easily. Consistent differences in bill length between the sexes suggest that males and females may exploit different floral resources or different proportions of the same resources. For honeyeaters and sunbirds, males have longer bills than females, but the reverse is true for many hummingbirds.     

The Bizarre Inflorescence of Norantea brasiliensis (Marcgraviaceae): Visits of Hovering and Perching Birds1

The pollination biology of Norantea brasiliensis (Marcgraviaceae) was studied in the rain forest of southeastern Brazil. This plant presents bizarre, brush-type racemous inflorescences bearing numerous flowers and extrafloral cup-shaped nectaries. Flower anthesis is diurnal, nectar production is continuous and copious, and the sticky pollen is readily removed by visitors during the first morning hours. The ruby-coloured inflorescences were visited by eight species of hummingbirds (Trochilidae), and 10 species of passerine birds (three Coerebidae and seven Thraupidae). Hummingbirds hovered while probing for nectar and touched flowers occasionally, whereas passerine birds perched and made contact with flowers habitually. Due to differences in flower-visiting and general foraging behaviour, perching birds act as better pollen vectors than hovering birds. The inflorescence of Norantea brasiliensis seems well fitted for pollination by passerine birds, and the hexose-dominated nectar supports this idea. Pollination syndrome trends within Marcgraviaceae may stem from insect-pollinated, condensed and spike-like inflorescences which would give rise to bird-pollinated, brush-type inflorescences. From the same basic condensed inflorescence, bat-pollinated umbelliform inflorescence may be derived from bird-pollinated, pendulous and corymb-like inflorescences. These postulated inflorescence types are found among the extant species of Marcgraviaceae.     

Wintering hummingbirds in Alabama and Florida: species diversity, sex and age ratios, and site fidelity

ABSTRACT Over the past several decades, there have been numerous reports of hummingbirds wintering in the southeastern United States. However, little is known about the species present and their relative abundance. From November 1998 to March 2008, we examined the species diversity, sex and age ratios, and site fidelity of hummingbirds wintering in southern Alabama and northern Florida. We captured and banded 1598 individuals representing 10 species, and the most frequently captured species were Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus; 51.6%), Ruby‐throated Hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris; 23.5%), and Black‐chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri; 16.9%). Other species captured included Buff‐bellied Hummingbirds (Amazilia yucatanensis), Calliope Hummingbirds (Stellula calliope), Allen's Hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin), Broad‐tailed Hummingbirds (Selasphorus platycercus), Broad‐billed Hummingbirds (Cynanthus latirostris), Anna's Hummingbirds (Calypte anna), and Costa's Hummingbirds (Calypte costae). Most hummingbirds (71.8%) were captured in December and January. For most species, sex ratios were male‐biased for juveniles and female‐biased for adults, indicating possible differential mortality. Of 1598 hummingbirds captured, 144 representing five species returned to the same wintering location at least once. Female Rufous Hummingbirds (20.4% of individuals captured) exhibited the greatest site fidelity. Recaptures of banded Rufous Hummingbirds in autumn and early winter revealed that some individuals moved south into Alabama or Florida from Tennessee, northern Georgia, and northern Louisiana. Same‐season recaptures of banded Rufous Hummingbirds suggest that their spring migration route is west along the Gulf Coast. Our results suggest that Alabama and Florida are viable overwintering areas for several species of hummingbirds, with numbers of species and individuals higher than previously recognized. However, more study is needed to confirm migration routes and to determine if Ruby‐throated Hummingbirds wintering in our study area are year‐round residents or migrants.     

Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters

Summary Handling times of hummingbirds (Amazilia rutila and Cynanthus latirostris) visiting artificial flowers were a positive function of corolla length, nectar volume and nectar concentration. Corolla angle had no consistent effects on handling times. A multiple regression model explained 83% of the variation in handling times for these two species. The model also closely fit independent data from another hummingbird, Archilochus colubris, suggesting that it is general enough to apply to other medium-sized, short-billed hummingbird species. When examined across the range of variation normally encountered by hummingbirds in nature, corolla length and nectar volume had the largest effect on nectar extraction rates. At corolla lengths longer than a hummingbird's bill handling time increases markedly. Hummingbirds maximize their net rate of energy intake by selecting flowers with the shortest corolla, the highest nectar concentrations and the highest nectar volume. Since there is a positive relation between bill length and nectar extraction rate, it is surprising that most hummingbirds have relatively short bills.     

Field Flight Dynamics of Hummingbirds during Territory Encroachment and Defense

Hummingbirds are known to defend food resources such as nectar sources from encroachment by competitors (including conspecifics). These competitive intraspecific interactions provide an opportunity to quantify the biomechanics of hummingbird flight performance during ecologically relevant natural behavior. We recorded the three-dimensional flight trajectories of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds defending, being chased from and freely departing from a feeder. These trajectories allowed us to compare natural flight performance to earlier laboratory measurements of maximum flight speed, aerodynamic force generation and power estimates. During field observation, hummingbirds rarely approached the maximal flight speeds previously reported from wind tunnel tests and never did so during level flight. However, the accelerations and rates of change in kinetic and potential energy we recorded indicate that these hummingbirds likely operated near the maximum of their flight force and metabolic power capabilities during these competitive interactions. Furthermore, although birds departing from the feeder while chased did so faster than freely-departing birds, these speed gains were accomplished by modulating kinetic and potential energy gains (or losses) rather than increasing overall power output, essentially trading altitude for speed during their evasive maneuver. Finally, the trajectories of defending birds were directed toward the position of the encroaching bird rather than the feeder.     

Timing in free-living rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus

Animals organize their lives around circannual and circadian rhythms, but little is known of their use of much shorter intervals. In the laboratory, some animals can learn the specific duration (seconds or minutes) between periods of food access. It has been supposed that wild nectarivores, such as hummingbirds, might also learn short time intervals so as to avoid revisiting emptied flowers until the nectar has been replenished. We provided free-living, territorial rufous hummingbirds each with eight artificial flowers containing sucrose solution. Four flowers were refilled 10 min after the bird emptied them, and the other four were refilled 20 min after being emptied. Throughout the day, birds revisited the 10 min flowers significantly sooner than they revisited the 20 min flowers, and return visits to the flowers matched their refill schedules. Hummingbirds remembered the locations and timing of eight rewards, updating this information throughout the day. Not only is this the first time that this degree of timing ability has been shown in wild animals, but these hummingbirds also exhibit two of the fundamental aspects of episodic-like memory (where and when), the kind of memory for specific events often thought to be exclusive to humans.     

Consequences of differences in body mass,wing length and leg morphology for nectar-feeding birds

Nectar-feeding birds are prominent in many parts of the world, and vary with respect to body size. Despite the availability of considerable morphometric data, few concerted efforts have been made to assess the influence of attributes such as mass, wing length and leg morphology upon the speed, acceleration, mode and energetic cost of movement by birds between flowers when foraging for nectar. This review attempts to consolidate and interpret available data and highlight areas where further investigations appear warranted. Australian honeyeaters are generally larger, and American hummingbirds smaller, than Hawaiian honeycreepers and sunbirds of Africa or Asia. Sunbirds, honeyeaters and honeycreepers generally perch while extracting nectar from flowers. Hummingbirds usually hover, apparently because suitable perches close to flowers are lacking, and not because hovering increases the speed at which flowers can be visited. Honeyeaters move from one flower to another at speeds that are at least as great as those for hummingbirds. Most passerine nectarivores need to ingest more nectar per day than hummingbirds in order to maintain energy balance, some species devoting more than 60% of the day to foraging. The major consequence of reduced foraging activity by hummingbirds, which spend only 5–30% of the day in this manner, appears to be male emancipation from nest construction and care of offspring. Large nectarivores have a greater capacity to store surplus food and to fast than smaller birds, and so can take advantage of short-lived peaks in nectar abundance. Nectarivores such as honeyeaters should therefore be favoured by the rapid diurnal changes in nectar availability which are characteristic of many Australian and African habitats. Body mass also determines the likely access to rich sources of nectar through size-related interspecific dominance hierarchies. In all families, larger species tend to monopolize the most rewarding nectar supplies, forcing smaller subordinate species to use poorer, more scattered sources. Within particular species, males usually have longer wings and greater masses than females. These variations imply that the two sexes differ with regard to their foraging ecology, although few supporting data are currently available.     

Three-dimensional space: locomotory style explains memory differences in rats and hummingbirds

While most animals live in a three-dimensional world, they move through it to different extents depending on their mode of locomotion: terrestrial animals move vertically less than do swimming and flying animals. As nearly everything we know about how animals learn and remember locations in space comes from two-dimensional experiments in the horizontal plane, here we determined whether the use of three-dimensional space by a terrestrial and a flying animal was correlated with memory for a rewarded location. In the cubic mazes in which we trained and tested rats and hummingbirds, rats moved more vertically than horizontally, whereas hummingbirds moved equally in the three dimensions. Consistent with their movement preferences, rats were more accurate in relocating the horizontal component of a rewarded location than they were in the vertical component. Hummingbirds, however, were more accurate in the vertical dimension than they were in the horizontal, a result that cannot be explained by their use of space. Either as a result of evolution or ontogeny, it appears that birds and rats prioritize horizontal versus vertical components differently when they remember three-dimensional space.     

Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness

Hummingbirds foraging in alpine meadows of central Colorado, United States, face a heterogeneous distribution of nectar rewards. This study investigated how variability in nectar resources caused by nectar-robbing bumblebees affected the foraging behavior of hummingbird pollinators and, subsequently, the reproductive success of a host plant (Ipomopsis aggregata). We presented hummingbirds with experimental arrays of I. aggregata and measured hummingbird foraging behavior as a function of known levels of nectar robbing. Hummingbirds visited significantly fewer plants with heavy nectar robbing (over 80% of available flowers robbed) and visited fewer flowers on those plants. These changes in hummingbird foraging behavior resulted in decreased percent fruit set as well as decreased total seed set in heavily robbed plants. These results indicate that hummingbird avoidance of nectar-robbed plants and flowers reduces plant fitness components. In addition, our results suggest that the mutualisms between pollinators and host plants may be affected by other species, such as nectar robbers. Received: 22 April 1998 / Accepted: 12 May 1998     

A Field Study of Spatial Memory in Green-Backed Firecrown Hummingbirds (Sephanoides sephaniodes)

The foraging ecology of hummingbirds involves the exploitation of a high number of patchily distributed flowers. This scenario seems to have influenced capabilities related to learning and memory, which help to avoid recently visited flowers and to allocate exploitation to the most rewarding flowers, once learning has occurred. We carried out two field experiments with the green‐backed firecrown hummingbird (Sephanoides sephaniodes, Trochilidae) in order to examine the ability of birds, first, to recall a nectar location, and secondly, to remember the location of the most rewarding flower among lower quality flowers. The first experiment showed that subjects were able to recall the location of nectar among flowers of identical appearance. In the second experiment, hummingbirds were also able to recall the location of the most rewarding nectar among less rewarding flowers with the same appearance. The results of this study suggest that S. sephaniodes can remember the location of the most rewarding patch, facilitating efficient exploitation of flowers in the absence of visual cues related to nectar quality.     

The Behavior and Interactions of Birds Visiting Erythrina fusca Flowers in the Colombian Amazon1

I observed 22 species of birds visiting flowering Erythrina fusca trees at Matamatá, Amazonas, Colombia. The large orange flowers of E. fusca are adapted for pollination by birds and are protected from illegitimate visits by a petal that covers the nectaries and anthers until displaced by a foraging bird. Experiments with flowers bagged to exclude potential pollinators demonstrated that the flowers do not open without assistance. At Matamatá, parrots are the most frequent visitors to flowering E. fusca, and two species, Dusky‐headed Parakeet (Aratinga weddellii) and Cobalt‐winged Parakeet (Brotogeris cyanoptera), appear to be the main pollinators. This is only the fourth report of Neotropical parrots acting as pollinating agents. At least five other parrot species fed on the nectar or flowers of E. fusca but destroyed the flowers in the process. Orange‐backed Troupials (Icterus jamacaii) were the only other species observed opening E. fusca flowers nondestructively and are likely to be pollinators. Hummingbirds were common visitors to E. fusca flowers and some species were found to carry E. fusca pollen; however, hummingbirds were unable to open the flowers themselves and relied on other visitors to open the flowers for them. The number of hummingbird visits to a flowering E. fusca tree was positively correlated with the number of visits by parrots and icterids, but not with the number of mature flowers, indicating that legitimate visitors facilitate access by hummingbirds.     

Renal response to saline infusion in chicks of Leach's storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)

The renal response to infusion of three different saline solutions was studied in chicks of Leach's storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Each of the solutions (125 mmol·1^-1 NaCl at 5.3 ml·h^-1, 250 mmol·l^-1 NaCl at 2.6 ml·h^-1, and 550 mmol·l^-1 NaCl at 1.2 ml·h^-1) provided the same delivery of Nacl but in different volumes of water. Birds infused with 125 mmol·l^-1 NaCl had a glomerular filtration rate of 25.7 ml·h^-1, a urine flow rate of 4.4 ml·h^-1, and excreted 71% of the infused Na⁺ load in the urine. With infusion of 250 mmol·l^-1 NaCl, the glomerular filtration rate was unchanged (23.3 ml·h^-1), but urine flow rate was reduced to 0.93 ml·h^-1 and only 35% of the Na⁺ load was excreted in the urine. Infusion of 550 mmol·l^-1 NaCl induced a sharp decrease in glomerular filtration rate (to 3.8 ml·h^-1) and urine flow rate (to 0.08 ml·h^-1), and only 1.4% of the infused Na⁺ was excreted in the urine. The contribution of different nephron populations to filtration was assessed by the pattern of staining of glomeruli by alcian blue infused during the last 30 min of the saline infusion. The numbers of stained glomeruli did not differ between birds infused with 125 and 250 mmol·l^-1 NaCl (59000 and 55000 glomeruli per kidney, respectively), and the patterns of staining were similar for birds in these two groups. Birds infused with 550 mmol·l^-1 NaCl had lighter staining overall and fewer stained glomeruli (37000 per kidney). This absence of staining was predominant in the smaller size classes of glomeruli, suggesting a selective shutdown of smaller (reptilian-type) nephrons during times of osmotic challenge in these birds. This may be part of an overall suite of water-conserving strategies employed by these chicks during their long confinement with irregular feeding in the nesting burrow.Abbreviations ADH antidiuretic hormone - GFR glomerular filtration rate - MT mammalian-type - P plasma inulin concentration - RT reptilian-type - U urine inulin concentration - V urine flow rate     

Adaptive strategies for post-renal handling of urine in birds

Birds are a diverse vertebrate class in terms of diet and habitat, but they share several common physiological features, including the use of uric acid as the major nitrogenous waste product and the lack of a urinary bladder. Instead, ureteral urine refluxes from the urodeum into the more proximal coprodeum and portions of the hindgut (colon or rectum and ceca). This presents a potential problem in that hyperosmotic ureteral urine in contact with the permeable epithelia of these tissues would counteract renal osmotic work. This review describes and provides examples of different strategies used by avian species to balance renal and post-renal changes in urine composition. The strategies described include: 1. a "reptilian" mode, with moderate renal concentrating ability, but high rates of post-renal salt and water resorption; 2. the "mammalian" strategy, in which the coprodeum effectively functions like a mammalian urinary bladder, preserving the osmotic concentrating work of the kidney; 3. an interaction strategy, in which post-renal transport processes are hormonally regulated in order to optimize renal function under varying conditions of salt or water stress; 4. the salt gland strategy seen in marine or estuarine birds with functional salt glands, in which post-renal transport mechanisms are used to conserve urinary water and to recycle excess NaCl to the nasal salt glands. Finally, we also describe some features of an as-yet unstudied group of birds, the birds of prey. At least some species in this group are relatively good renal concentrators, and would be predicted to have post-renal mechanisms to preserve this work. This new synthesis illustrates the marked diversity of adaptive mechanisms used by avian species to maintain osmotic homeostasis.