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.     

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.     

Testing non-additive effects of nectar-robbing ants and hummingbird pollination on the reproductive success of a parasitic plant

Nectar robbing may have an indirect negative effect on plant reproduction by discouraging legitimate pollinator species from visiting robbed flowers. In this study, we set up a 2 × 2 factorial design with nectar-robbing ants and hummingbird pollination to test for non-additive effects on fruit set, seed mass, and seed germination of the leafless mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae). Even though ants caused conspicuous damage at the base of the floral tubes, nectar availability was reduced by only 8 % in the presence of ants. The green-backed firecrown Sephanoides sephaniodes was insensitive to the presence of ants. Rather, the bird responded to flower number and the presence or the absence of damage, but not to the extent of damage within inflorescences. As hummingbirds were largely insensitive to variation in nectar robbing, the interaction ant × hummingbird had no effect on plant-reproductive success. Thus, the factorial experiment did not provide evidence for indirect negative effects of nectar robbing on plant reproduction. These results suggest that indirect effects of nectar robbers on pollinator behaviour may occur under a more restricted set of conditions than those previously considered. We suggest that the low amount of nectar removed by nectar-robbing ants was insufficient for hummingbirds to avoid robbed flowers, which restricted the potential for non-additive effects.     

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.     

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

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

Unpredictability of nectar nicotine promotes outcrossing by hummingbirds in Nicotiana attenuata

Many plants use sophisticated strategies to maximize their reproductive success via outcrossing. Nicotiana attenuata flowers produce nectar with nicotine at concentrations that are repellent to hummingbirds, increasing the number of flowers visited per plant. In choice tests using native hummingbirds, we show that these important pollinators learn to tolerate high‐nicotine nectar but prefer low‐nicotine nectar, and show no signs of nicotine addiction. Nectar nicotine concentrations, unlike those of other vegetative tissues, are unpredictably variable among flowers, not only among populations, but also within populations, and even among flowers within an inflorescence. To evaluate whether variations in nectar nicotine concentrations increase outcrossing, polymorphic microsatellite markers, optimized to evaluate paternity in native N. attenuata populations, were used to compare outcrossing in plants silenced for expression of a biosynthetic gene for nicotine production (Napmt1/2) and in control empty vector plants, which were antherectomized and transplanted into native populations. When only exposed to hummingbird pollinators, seeds produced by flowers with nicotine in their nectar had a greater number of genetically different sires, compared to seeds from nicotine‐free flowers. As the variation in nectar nicotine levels among flowers in an inflorescence decreased in N. attenuata plants silenced in various combinations of three Dicer‐like (DCL) proteins, small RNAs are probably involved in the unpredictable variation in nectar nicotine levels within a plant.     

Mixed hummingbird: Long‐proboscid‐fly pollination in ‘ornithophilous’Embothrium coccineum (Proteaceae) along a rainfall gradient in Patagonia,Argentina

Abstract The pollination ecology of eight populations of the tree Embothrium coccineum was studied along a steep rainfall gradient in NW Patagonia, Argentina. The showy red flowers suggest an ornithophilous pollination syndrome and they have been reported to attract hummingbirds in Argentina and hummingbirds and passerines in Chile. At each population, flower visitors were recorded and floral rewards were analysed. We found a highly significant increase in nectar concentration towards the drier end of the gradient, but this change was not related to the turnover of species in the flower‐visitor assemblage of E. coccineum. In addition to the hummingbird Sephanoides sephaniodes (Green‐Backed Firecrown, Trochilidae) which is widespread throughout the temperate forest at this latitude, other species seem to be locally important as pollinators of E. coccineum in some sites in Argentina (e.g. two long‐tongued tanglewing flies (Nemestrinidae) of the genus Trichophthalma). The long‐dated occurrence of tanglewing flies in South America, relative to the more modern hummingbirds, suggests that ornithophily may be a derived character in E. coccineum, the ancestral condition being pollination by Nemestrinidae.     

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.     

Patterns of color and nectar variation across an Ipomopsis (Polemoniaceae) hybrid zone

Hybridization may uncouple adaptive trait combinations that are present in parental species. I studied variation in flower color and reward quality across a hybrid zone of Ipomopsis aggregata and I. tenuituba. Individuals from hybrid populations showed considerable variation in flower color using corolla reflectance measurements. Flower spectra of such individuals were either intermediate or else resembled those flowers from the parental species. Ipomopsis aggregata populations had consistently higher nectar production rates and higher nectar standing crops than either I. tenuituba or hybrids. Ipomopsis aggregata flowers also produced more dilute nectar than those of hybrids and I. tenuituba, but the actual concentration values were quite variable among populations of the same type. Overall, the nectar quality of hybrid flowers most resembled that of I. tenuituba flowers. Based on the observed interpopulation patterns of color-reward associations in this hybrid zone, pollinators should be able to discriminate against I. tenuituba and hybrid populations and against most individuals within hybrid populations. However, they may visit those hybrids that resemble the most rewarding flower type (I. aggregata). The results emphasize the need for studies that address how hybridization affects subsequent plant fitness and the evolutionary dynamics of the species involved.     

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.     

Ornithophily in the Rhamnaceae: The pollination of the Chilean endemic Colletia ulicina

Colletia ulicina, an endemic species from the central region of Chile, displays red, tubular, scented, nectariferous flowers at the tip of its branches. Observations at two sites during two consecutive years indicate that the hummingbird Sephanoides sephaniodes (Trochilidae) visits the flowers on a regular basis. Captured hummingbirds had C. ulicina pollen loads on body parts matching the location of anthers and stigmas. The C. ulicina–S. sephaniodes interaction is well established (hummingbird visits were frequent, systematical, and occurred at different sites) although it lacks specificity (S. sephaniodes is a generalist hummingbird and C. ulicina has another, seasonally important pollinator, the even more generalist bumblebee Bombus dahlbomii). To the best of our knowledge this is the first documented report on bird pollination in the Rhamnaceae.     

Reward Tracking and Memory Decay in the Monarch Butterfly,Danaus plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

Due to their long‐distance migration routes and high longevity, monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) are likely to benefit from learning how to discriminate and remember suitable feeding resources. In this study, we assessed monarchs’ abilities to track changing nectar sources over time and to retain learned information presented in two conditioning schedules. Non‐preferred (blue and red) and preferred (yellow) artificial flowers were concomitantly offered to monarchs in a three‐phase experiment. In each phase, flowers of only one color contained sucrose solution, while the others contained water. The rewarding color was changed in each phase. Instantaneous observations were made to assess butterfly visits to each color during each phase; continuous observations over the first 90 min of a new phase allowed us to look in more detail at the transition process. Overall, monarchs tracked sucrose availability, visiting the rewarding flowers more often than the unrewarding ones, regardless of innate preferences. However, butterflies reverted to innate color preferences when the newly rewarding color was different from the initial trained color. In a second experiment, memory decay was compared for butterflies trained according to two schedules: ‘single training’ (sucrose solution in red vs. water in blue artificial flowers in one 15‐min session per day) or ‘intermittent training’ (as above, but in two 7.5‐min sessions per day). Afterwards, butterflies were tested on alternate days for a week in arrays containing unrewarding models of both colors. Following either training schedule, memory persisted for at least 3 d after reinforcement ceased. Our findings reveal that monarchs are able to change their feeding responses according to the flowers’ reward status despite innate preferences, as well as to retain flower information for about half a week regardless of the conditioning dynamics.     

The role of nectar production, flower pigments and odour in the pollination of four species of Passiflora (Passifloraceae) in south-eastern Brazil

The pollination biology of four species of passionflower was studied in south-eastern Brazil, specifically the importance of chemical features of floral nectar, pigments and odours. All species required pollinators to produce fruits: P. alata was pollinated by bees, P. speciosa by hummingbirds, and P. galbana and P. mucronata by bats. Pollinators consumed nectar as a food source. The activity of vertebrate pollinators reflected resource availability: they foraged when large amounts of nectar were available and when quantitative resource predictability was greater. The nectar of the vertebrate-pollinated species was richer in cholesterol and phospholipids, and had a potassium-sodium ratio higher than 1.0. For all species, the light absorption of flowers was paralleled by the pollinators' visual spectral sensitivity. This first report on Passiflora floral volatile compounds showed that there was a greater chemical class diversity among the species pollinated by animals with an acute olfactory sense, such as bees and bats. Benzenoid alcohols were the most represented compounds. The fragrances contained compounds that occur in other plant species and in the exocrine secretions of bees. This study shows a strong association between pollinators and the attracting and rewarding features of flowers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A trade-off between the amount and distance of pollen dispersal triggered by the mixed foraging behaviour of Sephanoides sephaniodes (Trochilidae) on Lapageria rosea (Philesiaceae)

Nectar thieves may increase or decrease pollinator-mediated pollen flow and thus may have positive or negative effects on plant reproductive success. In temperate rainforests of South America, the hummingbird Sephanoides sephaniodes acts as both a pollinator and non-destructive nectar thief on Lapageria rosea. Although pollinators that also act as nectar thieves have the potential to significantly modify plant reproductive success, no previous study has addressed this. To determine how the mixed behaviour of S. sephanoides affects pollen flow, we experimentally exposed some flowers to nectar theft and excluded nectar thieves from other flowers. We then assessed pollen dispersal into the floral neighbourhood. Thieved flowers exported less pollen, but the pollen exported was transferred farther into the neighbourhood. Our findings indicate a trade-off between distance and amount of pollen flow.     

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.     

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.