Temporal and microclimatic partitioning of the floral resources of Justicia aurea amongst a concourse of pollen vectors and nectar robbers

Summary The flowers of Justicia aurea, morphologically characteristic of ornithophily, attracted a diverse array of foragers where they occurred as a dense stand in the tropical forests at La Selva, Costa Rica, and so provided an arena for this study of competition and coexistence. Two hummingbird species (Phaethornis superciliosus and Campylopterus hemileucurus) visited the flowers legally early in the morning, and defended the nectar resource; a third smaller bird (P. longuemareus) foraged for nectar throughout the day but collected it illegally by piercing the corollas. In addition, nectar was harvested illegally by four species of stingless bee (Trigona) and by ants, creating a further drain on the limited floral resources.Consideration of the diurnal patterns of foraging activities in combination with a spatial axis (defined here in terms of microclimate and insolation) nevertheless showed a good separation of flower visits for the different nectarivores. Hummingbirds visited flowers in zones where the reward was highest, while insects foraged to minimise their energetic costs; each of these factors could in turn be related to microclimatic considerations. A comprehensive scheme of resource utilisation could therefore be extracted from the field observations and interpreted in these terms. The limited area of niche overlap thus revealed corresponded closely with the situations where direct interference competition was observed, between hummingbird species or between bees and aggressive ants.     

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     

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.     

Competition between hummingbirds and bumble bees for nectar in flowers of Impatiens biflora

Summary Using removal experiments and concurrent measurement of resource levels, evidence was obtained for exploitation competition between Ruby-throated hummingbirds and two bumble bee species (Bombus fervidus and B. vagans) foraging for nectar on Impatiens biflora.When all three species were active, flower visitors showed a complex pattern of resource partitioning involving both diel and spatial changes. Hummingbirds foraged almost exclusively from the outermost exposed flowers on plants from which they drained nectar levels beyond the reach of bees over most of the day. In contrast the longtongued bee species (B. fervidus), and the shorter-tongued B. vagans, displayed a preference for the innermost flowers on plants which were protected from hummingbird visitation by surrounding vegetation. The two Bombus spp. began foraging at different times during the day: B. vagans were most active in early morning but were replaced by B. fervidus later in the day.When hummingbirds were rare, only B. fervidus showed evidence of competitive release: an increase in the number of foragers and a broadening of flower choice to include more outer flowers. Workers of B. vagans showed a similar response to temporary removal of B. fervidus and also extended their foraging over the entire day. These responses were consistent with changes in the availability of nectar to different species.Removal experiments demonstrated that individuals of one species can be largely excluded from access to nectar resources as a direct result of exploitation of nectar by foragers of other species with longer tongues. Thus in this system interspecific exploitation is an important mechanism involved in resource partitioning.     

Hummingbird color preference within a natural hybrid population of Mimulus aurantiacus (Phrymaceae)

Hummingbird flowers are typically red in color but the reasons for this are not well understood. Relatively few studies have examined hummingbird flower color preferences under natural conditions in which flower color varies within a species. We recorded hummingbird visitation rates to flowers that vary in color from yellow to red in a natural hybrid population between red‐ and yellow‐flowered Mimulus aurantiacus subspecies. We also examined whether there were any correlations between color and flower size or nectar content. Finally, we reviewed the literature on hummingbird color choice tests using feeders and flowers. There were no correlations in this population between flower color and flower size, nectar volume, or sugar concentration. Nevertheless, hummingbirds undervisited the two most yellow color classes, overvisited orange flowers, and visited the two most red color classes in proportion to their frequency in the population. While Hummingbirds preferred flowers expressing red pigments to those that did not, the flowers with the most red hue were not the most attractive, as has been observed in similar studies with other species of Mimulus. While feeder studies generally fail to show hummingbird preference for red, all studies using flowers, including those that control all floral traits other than color, find consistent preference for red. Experiments are suggested that might help disentangle hypotheses for why hummingbirds exhibit this preference.     

Hummingbird-Syndrome Traits, Breeding System, and Pollinator Effectiveness in Two Syntopic Penstemon Species

Red-flowered, tubular Penstemon barbatus and Penstemon pinifolius, which have probably adapted independently to hummingbird pollinators, coflower on recently burned high-elevation slopes in the Chiricahua Mountains in Arizona. Hummingbirds visit both species but visit P. barbatus at a higher rate. We compared several traits and asked whether the species differed in specialization for hummingbird pollination. The corollas of P. pinifolius were 30% narrower than those of P. barbatus, but they were similar in tube length. Although a narrower corolla appeared to decrease access by large insects, small halictid bees were the only common insect visitors, and they gathered nectar from both species. Species differences in nectar production rate and concentration were minor, being smaller than within-species differences between dry and rainy periods. Taller inflorescences and a wider corolla tube may contribute to greater hummingbird use of P. barbatus. Penstemon pinifolius was fully self-compatible and weakly autogamous, whereas P. barbatus was strongly self-incompatible and had a longer flower life. Exclusion of hummingbirds reduced seed set fourfold in both species, supporting the inference from morphology and rewards that hummingbirds are the primary pollinators. In the absence of hummingbirds, halictids increased the seed set of P. barbatus relative to exclusion of all visitors, but they did not increase the seed set of P. pinifolius. Despite sharing the basic set of hummingbird-syndrome traits, the two species differed in degree of investment in individual flowers and in adaptations for outcrossing.     

Effect of floral orifice width and shape on hummingbird-flower interactions

Nectar guides are common among insect-pollinated plants, yet are thought to be rare or absent among hummingbird-pollinated plants. We hypothesize that the lower lips and trumpet-shaped orifices of many hummingbird flowers act as nectar guides to direct hummingbirds to the flowers' nectar and orient the birds for pollination. To test this hypothesis we conducted laboratory experiments using flowers of Monarda didyma (bee balm) and M. fistulosa (wild bergamot), which have orifice widths of about 4 mm and 2 mm, respectively, and latex flowers with orifice widths of 4 mm and 2 mm and three orifice shapes (trumpet, lipped, and lipless). Rubythroated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) made fewer errors during bill insertion and spent a smaller proportion of their feeding visit in error at M. didyma flowers than at M. fistulosa flowers, and at unaltered flowers of both species than at flowers with lower lips removed. Handling times were longer at both lipped and lipless flowers of M. didyma than at those of M. fistulosa, and at lipped than at lipless flowers of M. didyma. The average duration of contact between a hummingbird and a flower's anthers and stigma was longer at M. didyma than at M. fistulosa for both lipped and lipless flowers, and at lipped than at lipless M. didyma flowers. Hummingbirds missed the openings of latex flowers with their bills more frequently and spent a greater percentage of their total feeding visit in error at (i) 2-mm than at 4-mm flowers of all three shapes, (ii) lipless flowers than at trumpet or lipped flowers, and (iii) lipped flowers than at trumpet flowers of both widths. The duration of hummingbird/anther contact was longer at (i) 2-mm than at 4-mm flowers of all shapes, (ii) lipped than at trumpet or lipless flowers, and (iii) lipless than at trumpet flowers for both widths. No significant differences in handling times of hummingbirds were observed among any of the latex flower shapes or widths. Our results demonstrate that orifice shapes can act as guides by reducing the frequency of feeding errors by visiting hummingbirds, and that effects of orifice shape on pollination must be considered in conjunction with flower widths and locations of anthers and stigmas.     

Mobility of Impatiens capensis flowers: effect on pollen deposition and hummingbird foraging

Flexible pedicels are characteristic of birdpollinated plants, yet have received little attention in studies of hummingbird-flower interactions. A major implication of flexible pedicels is that flowers may move during pollination. We examined whether such motion affected interactions between ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) by increasing pollen deposition and by altering the effectiveness of nectar removal. For I. capensis, flower mobility enhanced pollen deposition: birds had significantly longer contact with anthers and more pollen deposited on their bills and crowns when foraging at mobile flowers than at flowers that had been experimentally immobilized. In contrast, flower mobility imposed a cost on hummingbirds by significantly increasing their handling times and reducing their extraction rates relative to their interactions with immobile flowers. Field observations indicated that the motion observed during hummingbird visits did not occur when bees (Bombus spp., Apis mellifera) visited I. capensis flowers, which suggests that the mobility of I. capensis flowers is an adaptation for hummingbird pollination.     

Pollination Ecology and Effect of Nectar Removal in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae)1

The floral syndrome of Macleania bullataYeo (Ericaceae) reflects its adaptation to hummingbird pollination. Its flowers, however, are subject to high levels of nectar robbing. I examined the floral visitor assemblage of M. bullata in a tropical montane wet forest in southwestern Colombia, focusing on the behavior of the visitors. I also tested for the presence of nocturnal pollination and the effects of nectar removal on new nectar production. The principal floral visitors were the nectar robbing hummingbirds Ocreatus underwoodii (19.1% of visits) and Chlorostilbon mellisugus (18.9%). Only two species of long–billed hummingbirds visited the flowers of M. bullata as “legitimate” pollinators: Coeligena torquata (14.7% of visits) and Doryfera ludoviciae (14.3%). The remaining visits constituted nectar robbing by bees, butterflies, and other species of hummingbirds. Nocturnal pollination took place, although fruit set levels were 2.4 times higher when only diurnal pollination was allowed as opposed to exclusively nocturnal pollination. Nectar robbers removed floral nectar without pollinating the flower. Treatments of experimental nectar removal were carried out to examine if flowers synthesize more nectar after nectar removal. Nectar removal increased the total volume of nectar produced by each flower without affecting sugar concentration. Thus, nectar robbing can impose a high cost to the plants by forcing them to replace lost nectar.     

FLORAL NECTAR SUGAR COMPOSITION AND POLLINATOR TYPE AMONG NEW WORLD GENERA IN TRIBE ANTIRRHINEAE (SCROPHULARIACEAE)

The floral nectar sugar compositions of 20 New World species from 10 genera and of five interspecific hybrids in tribe Antirrhineae have been analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography. Species are pollinated by short-tongued bees, long-tongued bees, and hummingbirds. Ornithophily represents the derived condition in the tribe and has arisen independently in subtribes Maurandyinae and Gambeliinae. All nectars analyzed are sucrose-dominant or -rich, except for the hexose-rich nectar of Mohavea breviflora. Despite the predominance of sucrose, floral nectar sugars from species pollinated by different pollen vectors have characteristic constituents. Nectar sugars from flowers visited by hummingbirds average 76.2% sucrose and have compositions remarkably similar to hummingbird nectars analyzed in previous studies of unrelated species. Long-tongued bee nectars average 87% sucrose and differ from shorttongued bee nectars which have the lowest mean sucrose percentage (40.2%). The association of sugar constituent types and principal pollinators is concordant with previous data and supports hypotheses concerning pollinator preferences and the adaptive significance of certain nectar sugar compositions. Within this adaptive framework, phylogenetic constraint is also operative and may explain the predominance of sucrose in nectar sugars, similarities in sugar composition among hummingbird nectars in subtribes Maurandyinae and Gambeliinae, and the similarity of nectar from Galvezia leucantha (long-tongued bee-pollinated) to hummingbird-pollinated species also in subtribe Gambeliinae.     

Effects of nectar theft by flower mites on hummingbird behavior and the reproductive success of their host plant, Moussonia deppeana (Gesneriaceae)

Hummingbird flower mites are transported in the nares of hummingbirds and may compete with them by "robbing" nectar secreted by the host plants. We have shown that Tropicoseius sp. flower mites consume almost half the nectar secreted by the long-lived, protandrous flowers of Moussonia deppeana (Gesneriaceae) pollinated by Lampornis amethystinus (Trochilidae). In this paper, we ask whether mimicking nectar consumption of flower mites alters some aspects of hummingbird foraging patterns, and, if so, how this affects host plant seed production. We observed hummingbirds foraging on (a) plants in which nectar was removed from the flowers and then filled with a sugar solution to half the volume of nectar simulating nectar consumption by flower mites, and (b) plants where nectar was removed and then filled with the sugar solution up to normal nectar volumes. Flower mites were excluded from both groups of plants to control for mite activity. Hummingbirds made fewer but longer visits to plants and revisited more the flowers with nectar removal than those without the treatment. We then conducted a pollination experiment on pistillate flowers using a stuffed L. amethystinus hummingbird to evaluate the effect of pollination intensity (number of bill insertions into one flower) on seed production. Flowers with more insertions produced significantly more seeds than those flowers that received fewer insertions. We conclude that the simulation of nectar consumption by hummingbird flower mites can influence the behavior of the pollinator, and this may positively affect seed production.     

Bees provide pollination service to Campsis radicans (Bignoniaceae), a primarily ornithophilous trumpet flowering vine

1. Pollination syndromes refer to stereotyped floral characteristics (flower colour, shape, etc.) that are associated with a functional group of pollinators (bee, bird, etc.).
2. The trumpet creeper Campsis radicans, endemic to the southeast and mid‐west United States, has been assigned to the hummingbird‐pollination syndrome, due mainly to its red, trumpet‐shaped flowers.
3. Previous studies demonstrated that the ruby‐throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris is C. radicans' primary pollinator, but anecdotal data suggest various bee species may provide pollination service when hummingbirds are absent.
4. This study characterised C. radicans nectar volume and concentration by time of day. Nectar volume was suitable for hummingbirds, but concentration was higher than typical hummingbird‐pollinated plants (～20% w/w); at ～30% w/w, it approached the concentration expected in bee‐pollinated plants (～50% w/w). We also found substantial amounts of nectar at night.
5. Two C. radicans populations received virtually no hummingbird visits, but the number of bees were markedly higher than in the populations previously described. Interestingly, there were no night‐time visitors despite the large quantity of nocturnal nectar.
6. Based on previously published pollen delivery per visit by various species, this study estimated that cumulative deposition by bees routinely reached pollen deposition thresholds for setting fruit in C. radicans. They are, unequivocally, the predominant pollinators in these populations, thus providing pollination service in the absence of hummingbirds.
7. These results highlight C. radicans as a food source for native bees and add to the understanding of how floral phenotypes can facilitate pollination by disparate functional groups.

     

The role of size and dominance in the feeding behaviour of coexisting hummingbirds

Interspecific competition can strongly influence community structure and limit the distribution and abundance of species. One of the main factors that determine hummingbird community structure is competition for food. The temporal and spatial distribution of nectar has a strong impact on hummingbird assemblages, shaping foraging niches according to hummingbird dominance and foraging strategy. We investigated whether body size and the degree of aggressive dominance influence feeding behaviour of hummingbirds in a temperate forest in northwestern Mexico (El Palmito, Mexico) when winter migrant hummingbirds are present in the community. First, we determined the dominance status of hummingbirds and evaluated the relationship between dominance and body mass, wing disc loading and migratory status. Secondly, we determined how hummingbird species used plant species differently. Thirdly, we examined whether the most dominant hummingbird species defended floral patches with more energy and/or with a larger number of flowers. At each flower patch, hummingbird species, number of hummingbird interactions, feeding time and number of flowers present were recorded. The total number of calories available within each floral patch was also determined. Our results demonstrate that the dominance hierarchy of 13 hummingbird species (migratory and resident) was correlated with body size but not wing disc loading, and that members of the hummingbird community showed a clear separation in resource use (by plant species). Hummingbirds at the top of the dominance hierarchy defended and fed on the best flower patches, defined by the quantity of calories available. Hence, the feeding behaviour of hummingbirds at El Palmito depends on the abundance of plant species used by hummingbirds and on the amount of energy available from each flower patch. Thus, hummingbird body size, aggressive dominance and defence of quality flower patches determines niche partitioning among species.     

Hummingbird avoidance of nectar-robbed plants: spatial location or visual cues

Broad-tailed and rufous hummingbirds avoid plants and flowers that have recently been visited by nectar-robbing bees. However, the cues the hummingbirds use to make such choices are not known. To determine the proximate cues hummingbirds use to avoid visiting nectar-robbed plants, I conducted multiple field experiments and one aviary study using the nectar-robbed, hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata . In the first field experiment, free-flying hummingbirds were presented with plants in which I manipulated nectar volume and the presence of nectar-robber holes. Hummingbirds visited significantly more plants with nectar and probed more available flowers on those plants, regardless of the presence of nectar-robber holes. Thus, I hypothesized that hummingbirds may avoid robbed plants based on their spatial memory of unrewarding plants and/or visual cues that nectar absence provides. In an aviary study, I removed spatial cues by re-randomizing the position of plants after each hummingbird-foraging bout, but hummingbirds still selected plants with nectar. Nectar may provide a visual cue in I. aggregata flowers because corollas are translucent, and nectar is visible through the side of the corolla. To determine if hummingbirds use this visual cue to avoid plants with no nectar, I masked corolla translucence in a field study by painting flowers with acrylic paint. Hummingbirds still visited significantly more plants with nectar and probed more flowers on those plants, whether or not the corollas were painted. These results suggest that hummingbirds use nectar as a proximate cue to locate and avoid non-rewarding, nectar-robbed plants, even in the absence of spatial cues and simple visual cues.     

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.     

Functional Gynodioecy in Opuntia quimilo (Cactaceae), a Tree Cactus Pollinated by Bees and Hummingbirds

Abstract: The tree cactus Opuntia quimilo is one of three known gynodioecious cacti. Its flowers deviate from most Opuntias in features that are attributable to ornithophily: petals are shiny red in colour, and fleshy in consistency, a nectar chamber is present, and stamen seismonasty is lacking. Pollinators include large matinal bees (predominantly Ptilothrix tricolor and Megachile sp.) and hummingbirds ( Chlorostilbon aureoventris and Heliomaster furcifer ). Hummingbirds rarely visit other local Opuntias. Hummingbirds, which are more common in the afternoon, prefer female flowers whereas bees prefer hermaphroditic flowers. Female flowers have more dilute nectar than hermaphroditic flowers. Under experimental conditions female fertility is as high as that of hermaphrodites, however, seeds from females always result from cross-pollination and from more severe ovule selection (ovule number is higher in female flowers). Under natural conditions female plants are reproductively more successful than hermaphrodites. Known cases of bird pollination in Opuntia and the incidence of ornithophilic features in Opuntia and related genera are discussed.     

Pollen transfer by hummingbirds and bumblebees, and the divergence of pollination modes in Penstemon

We compared pollen removal and deposition by hummingbirds and bumblebees visiting bird-syndrome Penstemon barbatus and bee-syndrome P. strictus flowers. One model for evolutionary shifts from bee pollination to bird pollination has assumed that, mostly due to grooming, pollen on bee bodies quickly becomes unavailable for transfer to stigmas, whereas pollen on hummingbirds has greater carryover. Comparing bumblebees and hummingbirds seeking nectar in P. strictus, we confirmed that bees had a steeper pollen carryover curve than birds but, surprisingly, bees and birds removed similar amounts of pollen and had similar per-visit pollen transfer efficiencies. Comparing P. barbatus and P. strictus visited by hummingbirds, the bird-syndrome flowers had more pollen removed, more pollen deposited, and a higher transfer efficiency than the bee-syndrome flowers. In addition, P. barbatus flowers have evolved such that their anthers and stigmas would not easily come into contact with bumblebees if they were to forage on them. We discuss the role that differences in pollination efficiency between bees and hummingbirds may have played in the repeated evolution of hummingbird pollination in Penstemon.     

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.     

Aechmea pectinata: a hummingbird-dependent bromeliad with inconspicuous flowers from the rainforest in south-eastern Brazil

The pollination biology of Aechmea pectinata (Bromeliaceae) was studied in a submontane rainforest in south-eastern Brazil. This species has a mainly clumped distribution and its aggregated individuals are likely to be clones. From October to January, during the flowering period, the distal third of its leaves becomes red. The inflorescence produces 1-15 flowers per day over a period of 20-25 d. The flowers are inconspicuous, greenish-white coloured, tubular shaped with a narrow opening, and the stigma is situated just above the anthers. Anthesis begins at 0400 h and flowers last for about 13 h. The highest nectar volume and sugar concentration occur between 0600 and 1000 h, and decrease throughout the day. Aechmea pectinata is self-incompatible and therefore pollinator-dependent. Hummingbirds are its main pollinators (about 90 % of the visits), visiting flowers mainly in the morning. There is a positive correlation between the number of hummingbird visits per inflorescence and the production of nectar, suggesting that the availability of this resource is important in attracting and maintaining visitors. The arrangement of the floral structures favours pollen deposition on the bill of the hummingbirds. Flowers in clumps promote hummingbird territoriality, and a consequence is self-pollination in a broader sense (geitonogamy) as individuals in assemblages are genetically close. However, trap-lining and intruding hummingbirds promote cross-pollination. These observations suggest that successful fruit set of A. pectinata depends on both the spatial distribution of its individuals and the interactions among hummingbirds.     

Flowering patterns of long-lived Heliconia inflorescences: implications for visiting and resident nectarivores

Summary Flowering patterns of four Heliconia (Heliconiaceae) species in Trinidad, West Indies were examined for their predictability and availability to the nectarivores that rely on Heliconia floral nectar. Principal flower visitors are trapling hermit hummingbirds; inflorescences are inhabited by nectarivorous hummingbird flower mites that move between inflorescences by riding in the hummingbirds' nares. Heliconia inflorescences flower for 40–200 days, providing long-term sources of copious nectar (30–60 l per flower), but each Heliconia flower lasts only a single day. As an inflorescence ages the interval increases between open flowers within a bract; wet-season inflorescences produce open flowers more slowly than dry-season conspecifics.Estimated daily energy expenditures for hermit hummingbirds demonstrate that slow production of short-lived open flowers plus low inflorescence density preclude territorial defense of Heliconia by the hermits. Heliconia flowering patterns are viewed as a means of (i) regulating reproductive investment by the plants through staggered flower production over long periods of time, and (ii) maintaining outcrossing by necessitating a traplining visitation pattern by its hummingbird pollinators. I suggest that Heliconia exhibit a two-tiered pollination system by using hermit hummingbirds primarily for outcrossing and using hummingbird flower mites primarily for self-pollination.