Animal behavior: timing in the wild

A recent study has found that Rufous hummingbirds time the interval between successive visits to flowers that replenish at different rates. The hummingbirds have been shown to store information about both where and when they ate throughout the day, evidence that this species has two components of episodic memory.     

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.     

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.     

The pollination of Bromelia antiacantha (Bromeliaceae) in southeastern Brazil: ornithophilous versus melittophilous features

Bromelia antiacantha flowered from December to February and during this period the central leaves and bracts displayed a bright red colour. The inflorescence bears 150-350 flowers, with 10-35 flowers opening per day over 4-5 days. The flowers are dark magenta coloured with white margins, tubular-shaped with a wide opening, and their stigma is situated below the anthers. Anthesis began around 4:00 h and flowers lasted approximately 15 h. The highest nectar volume and sugar concentration occurred between 4:00-6:00 h; after this period, both decreased throughout the day. B. antiacantha is partially self-incompatible, non-autogamous, and therefore, pollinator dependent. The hummingbirds Thalurania glaucopis, Amazilia fimbriata, and Ramphodon naevius were its most frequent pollinators (55% of the visits), visiting flowers mainly in the afternoon. The scattered distribution of B. antiacantha promoted trap-lining behaviour of the hummingbirds, which favoured fruit set through xenogamy. Corolla colour, wide flower opening, sweet odour and concentrated nectar early in the day favoured bee visitation. Of the 38 % of bee visits, 96% were made by Bombus morio, mainly in the morning and their behaviour promoted self-pollination. The bee Trigona spinipes frequently acted as a pollen and nectar thief early in the morning, excluding most of the hummingbirds. Bromelia antiacantha has ornithophilous and melittophilous features, and despite being pollinated by two kinds of agents, its reproductive success depends on a given set of circumstances.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Pollinator availability as a determinant of flowering time in ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens)

Summary Ocotillo, a perennial shrub of Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, produces its red tubular flowers in spring. This timing coincides with northward migration of hummingbirds through desert areas. Observations of visitors, pollen collections, and seed set reductions following exclusion of different flower visitors indicate that both hummingbirds and solitary bees pollinate ocotillo in southern Arizona. Seed sets of flowers on marked plants varied considerably within and between years, and this variation was related to the temporal match between flowering and hummingbird migration. This suggests that selection acts on plants to synchronize flowering with periods of pollinator abundance.     

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.     

Hummingbirds have a greatly enlarged hippocampal formation

Both field and laboratory studies demonstrate that hummingbirds (Apodiformes, Trochilidae) have exceptional spatial memory. The complexity of spatial-temporal information that hummingbirds must retain and use daily is probably subserved by the hippocampal formation (HF), and therefore, hummingbirds should have a greatly expanded HF. Here, we compare the relative size of the HF in several hummingbird species with that of other birds. Our analyses reveal that the HF in hummingbirds is significantly larger, relative to telencephalic volume, than any bird examined to date. When expressed as a percentage of telencephalic volume, the hummingbird HF is two to five times larger than that of caching and non-caching songbirds, seabirds and woodpeckers. This HF expansion in hummingbirds probably underlies their ability to remember the location, distribution and nectar content of flowers, but more detailed analyses are required to determine the extent to which this arises from an expansion of HF or a decrease in size of other brain regions.     

An evolved spatial memory bias in a nectar-feeding bird?

Studies have shown that nectar-feeding birds more easily learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to win-shift) than to return to such a location (to win-stay). This pattern has been interpreted as evidence of an evolved adaptation to the fact that nectar is a depleting resource; however, such a conclusion requires ruling out the possibility that this tendency is a consequence of the experience of individual birds, and is more compelling if performance in the memory task reveals sensitivity to detailed features of the spatiotemporal distribution of nectar in the environment. We tested the tendency of captive-reared Regent honeyeaters, Xanthomyza phrygia, a species of nectar-feeding bird, to win-shift or win-stay at different intervisit intervals. The birds generally avoided rewarding locations after a short retention interval (10 min), but returned to these locations after a long retention interval (3 h). This behaviour tracks the replenishment rate of the flowers exploited by this species in the wild, even though the subjects were born and reared in captivity. Copyright 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.      

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.     

Circadian time-place learning in mice depends on Cry genes

Endogenous biological clocks allow organisms to anticipate daily environmental cycles. The ability to achieve time-place associations is key to the survival and reproductive success of animals. The ability to link the location of a stimulus (usually food) with time of day has been coined time-place learning, but its circadian nature was only shown in honeybees and birds. So far, an unambiguous circadian time-place-learning paradigm for mammals is lacking. We studied whether expression of the clock gene Cryptochrome (Cry), crucial for circadian timing, is a prerequisite for time-place learning. Time-place learning in mice was achieved by developing a novel paradigm in which food reward at specific times of day was counterbalanced by the penalty of receiving a mild footshock. Mice lacking the core clock genes Cry1 and Cry2 (Cry double knockout mice; Cry1(-/-)Cry2(-/-)) learned to avoid unpleasant sensory experiences (mild footshock) and could locate a food reward in a spatial learning task (place preference). These mice failed, however, to learn time-place associations. This specific learning and memory deficit shows that a Cry-gene dependent circadian timing system underlies the utilization of time of day information. These results reveal a new functional role of the mammalian circadian timing system.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

What,where and when: deconstructing memory

The ability of animals to remember the what, where and when of a unique past event is used as an animal equivalent to human episodic memory. We currently view episodic memory as reconstructive, with an event being remembered in the context in which it took place. Importantly, this means that the components of a what, where, when memory task should be dissociable (e.g. what would be remembered to a different degree than when). We tested this hypothesis by training hummingbirds to a memory task, where the location of a reward was specified according to colour (what), location (where), and order and time of day (when). Although hummingbirds remembered these three pieces of information together more often than expected, there was a hierarchy as to how they were remembered. When seemed to be the hardest to remember, while errors relating to what were more easily corrected. Furthermore, when appears to have been encoded as a combination of time of day and sequence information. As hummingbirds solved this task using reconstruction of different memory components (what, where and when), we suggest that similar deconstructive approaches may offer a useful way to compare episodic and episodic-like memories.     

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.     

Nectar secretion dynamic links pollinator behavior to consequences for plant reproductive success in the ornithophilous mistletoe Psittacanthus robustus

The mistletoe Psittacanthus robustus was studied as a model to link flower phenology and nectar secretion strategy to pollinator behaviour and the reproductive consequences for the plant. The bright‐coloured flowers presented diurnal anthesis, opened asynchronously throughout the rainy season and produced copious dilute nectar as the main reward for pollinators. Most nectar was secreted just after flower opening, with little sugar replenishment after experimental removals. During the second day of anthesis in bagged flowers, the flowers quickly reabsorbed the offered nectar. Low values of nectar standing crop recorded in open flowers can be linked with high visitation rates by bird pollinators. Eight hummingbirds and two passerines were observed as potential pollinators. The most frequent flower visitors were the hummingbirds Eupetomena macroura and Colibri serrirostris, which actively defended flowering mistletoes. The spatial separation between anthers, stigma and nectar chamber promotes pollen deposition on flapping wings of hovering hummingbirds that usually probe many flowers per visit. Seed set did not differ between hand‐, self‐ and cross‐pollinated flowers, but these treatments set significantly more seeds than flowers naturally exposed to flower visitors. We suggest that the limitation observed in the reproductive success of this plant is not related to pollinator scarcity, but probably to the extreme frequency of visitation by territorial hummingbirds. We conclude that the costs and benefits of plant reproduction depend on the interaction strength between flowers and pollinators, and the assessment of nectar secretion dynamics, pollinator behaviour and plant breeding system allows clarification of the complexity of such associations.