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.     

The Role of Flower Width in Hummingbird Bill Length‐Flower Length Relationships1

Observations of hummingbirds feeding at flowers longer or shorter than their bills seem to contradict the view that bill lengths of hummingbirds evolved in concert with the lengths of their flowers. Recent experiments, however, indicate that a hummingbird's ability to feed at artificial flowers of different lengths depends on the widths of the flowers. We examined if the broad range of flower lengths visited by many hummingbird species can be explained by the widths of the flowers. We predicted that both short‐ and long‐billed hummingbirds would include long, wide flower species in their diets, but that short‐billed hummingbirds would not include long, narrow flower species because nectar in these species might be beyond the reach of their bills. If so, the slope of the regression for flower width versus flower length should be smaller for flower species visited by longer‐billed hummingbirds relative to those visited by shorter‐billed hummingbirds. Analyses of data sets for some North American and Monteverde hummingbirds and their food plants were consistent with this prediction, and bill lengths were significantly correlated with the slopes of the regressions of flower width versus length for seven hummingbird species. Comparisons of observed flower use by some Monteverde hummingbird species to flower assemblages generated at random suggest that these significant regressions were not simply a result of allometric relationships between flower lengths and widths, but in some cases reflected active choice by the birds. The two hummingbird–flower data sets also differed significandy in the scaling of corolla width relative to corolla length. In particular, the Monteverde data set contained a large number of long, narrow flower species, which we suggest is a consequence of a different floral evolutionary history and association with long‐billed hummingbird species. The evolutionary effects of hummingbirds and their flowers upon one another are more complex than has generally been realized, and a consideration of corolla length jointly with other floral characters may improve our understanding of hummingbird‐flower relationships.     

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.     

Nitrogen requirements of an old world nectarivore, the orange-tufted sunbird Nectarinia osea

Nectarivorous birds are represented by three major radiations: honeyeaters and sunbirds in the Old World and hummingbirds in the New World. Costa's hummingbirds and New Holland honeyeaters have unusually low nitrogen requirements, which have been related to the species' low-protein, high-sugar diets. Therefore, we hypothesised that orange-tufted sunbirds (Nectarinia osea) would likewise have low-maintenance nitrogen requirements and low rates of endogenous nitrogen loss. To test this hypothesis, we measured nitrogen balance, total endogenous nitrogen loss, and body mass changes in captive birds, using insects as a nitrogen source. Nitrogen balance, estimated by regression analysis to be 3.9 mg d(-1), was less than one-half of that allometrically predicted, while total endogenous nitrogen loss (1.9+/-0.6 mg d(-1)) was less than one-third of the allometrically predicted value. Thus, orange-tufted sunbirds follow the same pattern of low nitrogen requirements found in hummingbirds and honeyeaters. Total endogenous losses of nitrogen in nectarivores are low because a fibreless, easily digestible liquid diet reduces nitrogen losses in the feces, while the protein-sparing effect of a diet containing largely sugar leads to low endogenous urinary nitrogen losses.     

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.     

A new dimension to hummingbird-flower relationships

The close correspondence between the bills of hummingbirds and the lengths of the flowers they feed from has been interpreted as an example of coadaptation. Observations of birds feeding at flowers longer and shorter than their bills, however, and the lack of experimental evidence for any feeding advantage to short bills, seem to contradict this interpretation. I address this problem by considering a little-studied dimension of floral morphology: corolla diameter. In laboratory experiments on female ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris), probing abilities (maximum extraction depths) increased with increasing corolla diameter. Handling times increased with decreasing corolla diameter, resulting in handling time equivalents, i.e., flowers having the same handling times but different lengths and diameters. Longer-billed birds had greater maximum extraction depths and shorter handling times than shorter-billed birds at all corolla diameters greater than the width of the bill. In contrast, shorter-billed birds made fewer errors inserting their bills into narrow flowers. Hence, differences in bill lengths apparently are associated with trade-offs in foraging abilities, whereby longer-billed birds are able to feed at long flowers and may do so more quickly, whereas shorter-billed birds are able to feed more successfully at narrow flowers.     

Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions

 Nectarivory has evolved many times in birds: although best known in hummingbirds, sunbirds and honeyeaters, it also occurs on an opportunistic basis in a varied assortment of birds. We present a phylogenetic analysis of the distribution of nectarivory in birds. Specialised avian nectarivores are generally small, with an energetic lifestyle and high metabolic rates. Their high degree of dependence on nectar as a food source has led to convergence in morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations. We examine the constituents of nectar which are most important to bird consumers, and how the birds deal with them in terms of physiology and behaviour. There are still unanswered questions: for example, the dichotomy between sucrose-rich nectars in hummingbird-pollinated plants and predominantly hexose-rich nectars in sunbird-pollinated plants appears to have little to do with bird physiologies and may rather reflect patterns of nectar secretion. Received November 28, 2002; accepted January 26, 2003 Published online: June 2, 2003     

Bird pollination in South African species ofSatyrium (Orchidaceae)

Field observations showed that three South African orchid species,Satyrium carneum, S. coriifolium andS. princeps, are pollinated by sunbirds. Foraging sunbirds insert their bills into the labellum chamber of the flowers and suck nectar from the labellum spurs with their tongues. The column overarches the entrance to the labellum and pollinaria become affixed to the upper mandible of the bill. Birds often attempt to remove pollinaria by rubbing their bills against a branch, but are mostly unsuccessful due to the large plate-like viscidia which attach the pollinaria very firmly to the bill. Other modifications for bird pollination in theseSatyrium species may include the red, carmine or orange colour of the flowers, sturdy inflorescence stems used for perching and large amounts of dilute nectar in the spurs. EachSatyrium species was pollinated by several species of sunbird, and despite some differences in flowering time, occasional hybrids occur at a site whereS. carneum andS. coriifolium share the same sunbird pollinators.     

Whitebellied sunbirds (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Nectarinia talatala</Emphasis>, Nectariniidae) do not prefer artificial nectar containing amino acids

Amino acids are the most abundant class of compounds in nectar after sugars. Like its sugar concentration, the amino acid concentration of nectar has been linked to pollinator type, and it has been suggested that amino acid concentrations are high in the floral nectars of plant species pollinated by passerine birds compared to those pollinated by hummingbirds. We investigated the feeding response of whitebellied sunbirds (Nectarinia talatala) to the inclusion of amino acids in artificial nectar (0.63 M sucrose solution). The response to asparagine, glutamine, phenylalanine, proline, serine and valine, amino acids commonly found in floral nectars, was tested individually and using a mixture of all six amino acids, at two different concentrations (2 and 15 mM). Sunbirds showed no significant preference for amino acids in nectar, or avoided them, especially at the higher concentration. We discuss these findings in the light of the nitrogen requirements of nectarivorous birds and data on amino acids in floral nectars.     

Pollinating birds differ in spectral sensitivity

Pollinating animals and their angiosperm hosts often show strong co-adaptation in traits that increase the likelihood of a successful transfer of pollen and nutrient rewards. One such adaptation is the reported colour difference caused by unequal distribution of anthocyanidin pigments amongst plant species visited by hummingbirds and passerines. This phenomenon has been suggested to reflect possible differences in the colour vision of these pollinating birds. The presence of any such difference in colour vision would arguably affect the ecological and evolutionary interactions between flowers and their visitors, accentuating differences in floral displays and attractiveness of plants to the favoured avian pollinators. We have tested for differences in colour vision, as indicated by the amino acid present at certain key positions in the short-wavelength-sensitive type 1 (SWS1) visual pigment opsin, between the major groups of pollinating birds: the non-passerine Trochilidae (hummingbirds), the passerine Meliphagidae (honeyeaters) and Nectariniidae (sunbirds) plus five other Passerida passerine families. The results reveal gross spectral sensitivity differences between hummingbirds and honeyeaters, on the one hand, and the Passerida species, on the other.     

The diet of the New Holland honeyeater,Phylidonyris novaehollandiae

New Holland honeyeaters collect nectar, manna or honeydew for energy and hawk small flying insects for protein. The insects taken were usually Diptera and Hymenoptera weighing 0.7 mg dry weight or less. Net rates of energy gain from hawking small flying insects were usually less than 20 J min^?1 and sometimes negative and insufficient to meet the bird's daily energy requirements. Those from feeding on nectar, manna or honeydew were usually above 40J min^?1 and often above 400J min^?1 at dawn and the birds depended on these carbohydrates for energy. Nectar, manna and honeydew contained negligible amounts of protein, and the birds used small flying insects as sources of protein, and presumably other nutrients. Given that carbohydrate resources supply better rates of energy gain than insects. New Holland honeyeaters should collect their energy requirements from carbohydrates and only collect sufficient insects to satisfy their protein requirements. Estimates of the food intakes of both non-breeding and breedig birds showed that they did this. Non-breeding New Holland honeyeaters collected from 72 to 125 (mean 92) kJ of carbohydrates per day and 17 to 58 (mean 31) mg of protein per day. These meet the daily energy (75 kJ) and protein (20 mg) requirements of the birds. Breedig birds collected more carbohydrates and more insects, but in proportion to their increased energy and protein requirements respectively. New Holland honeyeaters are probably limited by their ability to meet their energy requirements from nectar, manna or honeydew and not by insects. Non-breeding birds collected their protein requirements in about 10 min of insect-feeding, but spent from 33 to 90% of the day collecting carbohydrates to meet their energy requirements. The maintenance requirement of 20 mg of protein per day for New Holland honeyeaters is about 25% of that estimated from standard equations for a bird of the same size. This low level may have evolved in response to low energy availability.     

Hummingbird tongues are elastic micropumps

Pumping is a vital natural process, imitated by humans for thousands of years. We demonstrate that a hitherto undocumented mechanism of fluid transport pumps nectar onto the hummingbird tongue. Using high-speed cameras, we filmed the tongue–fluid interaction in 18 hummingbird species, from seven of the nine main hummingbird clades. During the offloading of the nectar inside the bill, hummingbirds compress their tongues upon extrusion; the compressed tongue remains flattened until it contacts the nectar. After contact with the nectar surface, the tongue reshapes filling entirely with nectar; we did not observe the formation of menisci required for the operation of capillarity during this process. We show that the tongue works as an elastic micropump; fluid at the tip is driven into the tongue''s grooves by forces resulting from re-expansion of a collapsed section. This work falsifies the long-standing idea that capillarity is an important force filling hummingbird tongue grooves during nectar feeding. The expansive filling mechanism we report in this paper recruits elastic recovery properties of the groove walls to load nectar into the tongue an order of magnitude faster than capillarity could. Such fast filling allows hummingbirds to extract nectar at higher rates than predicted by capillarity-based foraging models, in agreement with their fast licking rates.     

Morphological relationships of passerine birds from Australia and New Guinea in relation to their diets

Beak, wing, leg and intestinal lengths, and gizzard widths, were all significantly related to body mass in 51 honeyeater species from Australia, 48 honeyeater species from New Guinea and 31 purely insectivorous passerine bird species from Australia. The nectar-feeding honeyeaters had smaller gizzards and intestines than wholly insectivorous birds of comparable size, although their wing and leg lengths did not differ; New Guinean and Australian honeyeaters were similar in these respects. Overall, honeyeaters had longer beaks than pure insectivores. Among Australian honeyeaters, those genera consuming more nectar than insects had longer beaks than the less nectarivorous, more insectivorous genera. Indeed, the latter group had beaks comparable in length to wholly insectivorous birds. All morphological differences revealed were attributable to known differences in diet.     

Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context

Evolutionary shifts to bird pollination (ornithophily) haveoccurred independently in many lineages of flowering plants.This shift affects many floral features, particularly thoseresponsible for the attraction of birds, deterrence of illegitimateflower visitors (particularly bees), protection from vigorousforaging by birds, and accurate placement of pollen on bird'sbodies. Red coloration appears to play a major role in bothbee-deterrence and bird-attraction. Other mechanisms of bird-attractioninclude the production of abundant dilute nectar and the provisionof secondary perches (for non-hovering birds). As a result ofselection for similar phenotypic traits in unrelated bird-pollinatedspecies, a floral syndrome of ornithophily can be recognized,and this review surveys the component floral traits. The strongconvergent evolution evident in bird-pollinated flowers raisesa question about the nature of the genetic mechanisms underlyingsuch transitions and whether the same gene systems are involvedin most cases. As yet there is too little information to answerthis question. However, some promising model systems have beendeveloped that include closely related bee and bird-pollinatedflowers, such as Ipomoea, Mimulus, and Lotus. Recent studiesof floral developmental genetics have identified numerous genesimportant in the development of the floral phenotype, whichare also potential candidates for involvement in shifts betweenbee-pollination and bird pollination. As more whole-genome informationbecomes available, progress should be rapid. Key words: Anthocyanin pigmentation, bird-pollination, candidate gene, developmental genetics, honey-eaters, hummingbirds, nectar, ornithophily, pollination syndrome, sunbirds Received 2 November 2007; Revised 21 December 2007 Accepted 7 January 2008     

Partitioning of nectar sources in an Australian honeyeater community

Feeding by honeyeaters was found to maintain nectar at low levels at three sites studied on Kangaroo Island in May-June 1978. The productivity of nectar at a site and position in a dominance hierarchy appeared to determine which bird species used each site. Correa was the main nectar source in the poorest area and produced 0.05 kJ m^?2 per day. The small eastern spinebill was the most abundant honeyeater. The purple-gaped honeyeater also occurred but fed mostly on honeydew. The medium sized New Holland honeyeater was common and territorial in the second area, where Banksia marginata and B. ornata inflorescences and Adenanthos flowers produced 0.7 kJ m^?2 of nectar per day. Spinebills and crescent honeyeaters also visited flowers and were sometimes chased by New Holland honeyeaters. The richest site was a flowering Eucalyptus cosmophylla tree (5.1 kJ m^?2 of nectar per day). A red wattlebird, the largest honeyeater, held a territory in part of this tree and chased other honeyeaters from the territory. New Holland, crescent and purple-gaped honeyeaters fed on flowers in other parts of the tree. The spinebill was absent. We conclude that nectar was partitioned along a spectrum of rich to poor sources. Larger more aggressive species used and sometimes defended the richest sources while the smaller birds used the poorer sources.     

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.     

African sunbirds hover to pollinate an invasive hummingbird-pollinated plant

Why do hummingbirds hover while Old World nectar‐feeding birds perch? A unique opportunity to explore this question is presented by the invasion into Africa of a plant adapted for pollination by hovering hummingbirds. Like other hover‐pollinated plants of the New World, the flowers of the tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca lack perches and are oriented towards open space. We find that Old World nectarivores, especially the malachite sunbird, Nectarinia famosa, hover 80% of the time when taking nectar from these flowers. They hover for up to 30 s, and are able to sustain this hovering lifestyle in an area where native nectar plants are absent. Nicotiana glauca greatly increases the local abundance of sunbirds compared with uninvaded areas. In turn, flowers visited by sunbirds formed significantly more capsules and set significantly more seed than sunbird‐excluded flowers, possibly facilitating the invasion. The results suggest a prominent role for plant, rather than bird traits in determining the occurrence of hover‐pollination, begging the question of why plants adapted for hover pollination do not occur outside the New World.     

Bill Color Preferences of Zebra Finches

Bill color varies with age and sex in zebra finches. Among birds of similar age and condition, males' bills tend to be redder and darker than those of females, but there is overlap in the phenotypic expression of the sexes. The bills of young birds are paler and less red than those of older birds. There is also interindividual variation within age and sex class. Experiments were performed to measure heterosexual and isosexual (= same sex) preferences of finches. Females preferred to associate with males with the reddest, brightest bills; they even preferred males whose bills were exaggerated through color applications of non-toxic marking pen. Males preferred to associate with females with bill colors in the middle of the phenotypic range. Females thus have “directional” preferences for male bill color, whereas male preference is “stabilizing” with regard to female bill color. In isosexual tests, neither sex showed a consistent preference for particular bill colors. Both sexes, however, displayed a tendency toward individual variability in preference. Bill color appears to be more important in heterosexual than in isosexual interactions. Several authors have recently suggested that organisms prefer brightly colored mates because bright coloration indicates superior physical condition. Results reported here do not support this hypothesis. Alternative functional explanations for the observed preferences are that bill color signals mating status, age or reproductive value. None of these appears to be a cogent explanation for the trends. Preferences do not appear to result from sexual imprinting. The possibility that the preferences are aesthetic and non-functional is discussed.     

Altitude-related shift of relative abundance from insect to sunbird pollination in Elaeagnus umbellata (Elaeagnaceae)

The evolution of floral traits has been thought to be influenced by local, effective pollinators. However, little attention has been paid to the possibility that altitudinal variation in floral traits could be mediated by local pollinator functional groups, particularly a shift from bees to birds. Plant size, floral traits, pollinators and their pollination roles were investigated in the spring-flowering shrub Elaeagnus umbellata (Elaeagnaceae) at three altitudes (1160, 1676, and 2050 m) in Minshan, Sichuan Province, on the northern rim of the Hengduan Mountains, southwest China. Compared to lower altitudes, higher-altitude plants were smaller but the floral tubes were longer, with a larger volume of nectar of lower sugar concentration but with a greater proportion of sucrose. The visitation frequency of bees decreased with altitude, whereas the sunbirds did the opposite. Birds and bees foraged for nectar but not pollen, and birds deposited more pollen grains per visit relative to bees and least were syrphid flies. Excluding birds decreased seed set at high but not at mid- or low altitude. Our study of E. umbellata revealed an association between altitudinal variation in floral traits and a change in the relative abundance of the major pollinators with altitude from majority bees to majority sunbirds. Although abiotic factors also tend to vary with altitude and can affect floral traits, nectar properties of “pro-bird” pollination were observed at high altitude.     

Oriole pollination ofErythrina breviflora (Leguminosae): Evidence for a polytypic view of ornithophily

Erythrina breviflora is visited by large numbers of passerine birds of which orioles (Icterus: Icteridae) are the primary pollinators. The flowers produce large quantities of nectar but they are rarely visited by hummingbirds. Inflorescence and floral morphology, and low levels of sucrose in the nectar probably explain the rarity of foraging hummingbirds. A comparison of Old WorldErythrina and their pollinators with New World species pollinated by orioles and hummingbirds suggests that parallel evolution has occurred. When the comparison is expanded to include other species pollinated by orioles, it is clear that various New WorldIcteridae, Thraupidae, etc. are ecological equivalents of Old WorldOriolidae, Pycnonotidae, Sturnidae, etc. and that flowers pollinated by these birds have similar characteristics.