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.     

Nectarivore foraging ecology: rewards differing in sugar types

Abstract.

• 1 Honey bees, visiting artificial flower patches, were used as a model system to study the effects of sugar type (sucrose, glucose, fructose, and mixed monosaccharide), caloric reward, and floral colour on nectarivore foraging behaviour. Observed behaviour was compared to the predictions of various (sometimes contradictory) foraging models.
• 2 Bees drank indiscriminately from flowers in patches with a blue-white flower dimorphism when caloric values of rewards were equal (e.g. 1M sucrose in both colours; 1 M sucrose versus 2 M monosaccharide of either type), but when nectar caloric rewards were unequal, they switched to the flower colour with the calorically greater reward.
• 3 In yellow-blue dimorphic flower patches, on the other hand, bees did not maximize caloric reward. Rather, bees were individually constant, some to blue, others to yellow, regardless of the sugar types or energy content of the rewards provided in the two flower morphs.
• 4 The results suggest that optimal foraging theory (maximization of net caloric gain per unit time) is a robust predictor of behaviour with regard to the sugar types common to nectars; such optimal foraging is, however, limited by a superstructure of individual constancy.

     

Risk‐averse inflorescence departure in hummingbirds and bumble bees: could plants benefit from variable nectar volumes?

Most hermaphroditic, many-flowered plants should suffer reduced fitness from within-plant selfing (geitonogamy). Large inflorescences are most attractive to pollinators, but also promote many flower visits during a single plant visit, which may increase selfing and decrease pollen export. A plant might avoid the negative consequences of attractiveness through modification of the floral display to promote fewer flower visits, while retaining attractiveness. This report shows that increasing only the variance in nectar volume per flower results in fewer flower visits per inflorescence by wild hummingbirds ( Selasphorus rufus ) and captive bumble bees ( Bombus flavifrons ) foraging on artificial inflorescences. Inflorescences were either constant (all flowers contained the same nectar volume) or variable (half the flowers were empty, the other half contained twice as much nectar as in the constant flowers). Both types of inflorescence were simultaneously available to foragers. Risk-averse foraging behaviour was expressed as a patch departure preference: birds and bees visited fewer flowers on variable inflorescences, and this preference was expressed when resource variability could be determined only by concurrent sampling. When variance treatments were clearly labelled with colour and offered to hummingbirds, the departure effect was maintained; however, when preference was measured by inflorescence choice, birds did not consistently prefer to visit constant inflorescences. The reduced visitation lengths on variable inflorescences by both birds and bees documented in this study imply that variance in nectar production rates within inflorescences may represent an adaptive trait to avoid the costs of geitonogamy.     

Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time

Summary The time required for a bumble bee to visit a flower is affected by the length of the bee's glossa and its body weight, and by the depth of the flower and the volume of nectar it contains. Probing time is comprised of two components: access time and ingestion time. Access time increases linearly with flower depth, but ingestion time varies with flower depth only in flowers deeper than the length of the bee's glossa, due to a decline in the rate of ingestion of nectar. Probing time therefore increases gradually with increasing depth for flowers shallower than the bee's glossa, but beyond that depth it increases much more rapidly. The relation of probing time to flower depth influences the foraging efficiency and choice of flowers by bumble bees.     

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.     

Intra‐floral resource partitioning between endemic and invasive flower visitors: consequences for pollinator effectiveness

1. Sympatric flower visitor species often partition nectar and pollen and thus affect each other's foraging pattern. Consequently, their pollination service may also be influenced by the presence of other flower visiting species. Ants are solely interested in nectar and frequent flower visitors of some plant species but usually provide no pollination service. Obligate flower visitors such as bees depend on both nectar and pollen and are often more effective pollinators. 2. In Hawaii, we studied the complex interactions between flowers of the endemic tree Metrosideros polymorpha (Myrtaceae) and both, endemic and introduced flower‐visiting insects. The former main‐pollinators of M. polymorpha were birds, which, however, became rare. We evaluated the pollinator effectiveness of endemic and invasive bees and whether it is affected by the type of resource collected and the presence of ants on flowers. 3. Ants were dominant nectar‐consumers that mostly depleted the nectar of visited inflorescences. Accordingly, the visitation frequency, duration, and consequently the pollinator effectiveness of nectar‐foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) strongly decreased on ant‐visited flowers, whereas pollen‐collecting bees remained largely unaffected by ants. Overall, endemic bees (Hylaeus spp.) were ineffective pollinators. 4. The average net effect of ants on pollination of M. polymorpha was neutral, corresponding to a similar fruit set of ant‐visited and ant‐free inflorescences. 5. Our results suggest that invasive social hymenopterans that often have negative impacts on the Hawaiian flora and fauna may occasionally provide neutral (ants) or even beneficial net effects (honeybees), especially in the absence of native birds.     

How long to stay on a plant: the response of bumblebees to encountered nectar levels

This field study shows that the number of flowers visited per bee per plant (Anchusa officinalis) increases with the instantaneous nectar level at the plant. Observations during the season showed that a bee visits more flowers per plant of given nectar level, the lower the overall mean nectar level in the study area. These results agree with predictions from a model based on the ‘marginal value theorem’, but with assumptions and constraints adapted for nectar-foraging bees. It suggests that bumblebees assess the nectar level at a plant by sampling one or a few flowers, which is possible because within-plant nectar volumes are correlated. The bees compare encountered gains to an optimal plant switching threshold equal to the overall mean nectar level and leave an unrewarding plant as soon as possible, but continue to visit the flowers on a rewarding plant. However, the bees leave before having visited all flowers due to a searching constraint. The bees’ response to plant nectar levels results in systematic flower visitation, because visitation to recently depleted flowers is reduced, which reduces the variation of the inter-visit time per flower. Systematic flower visitation implies that the overall mean encountered gain per flower is higher than the overall mean standing crop, as predicted by a model of systematic foraging. However, the sampling and searching constraints on the bees’ response to plant nectar levels increase the variation of the inter-visit time per flower, and thereby limit the degree of systematic flower visitation and the effect on the mean encountered gain.     

Comparative nectar-foraging behaviors and efficiencies of an alien and a native bumble bee

Resource preemption by alien organisms can contribute to their invasion success and the demise of functionally equivalent native species, particularly when opportunistic foraging by aliens results in more efficient exploitation. In forests of NW Patagonia, the only native bumble bee and major pollinator, Bombus dahlbomii, declined almost to extinction as the alien B. ruderatus increased in abundance since its first appearance about 17 years ago. To explore whether resource competition might have driven this displacement we studied the behavior and foraging efficiency of both bumble bees while they harvested nectar from flowers of Alstroemeria aurea, the main summer food resource in the forests of NW Patagonia. We compared the nectar content of flowers that bees selected, recently visited, and rejected with that of randomly-chosen neighboring flowers and assessed differences in visitation rates. The native bumble bee selects flowers with abundant nectar and mostly exploits nectar-rich flower patches by rejecting a higher proportion of flowers with little or no nectar. On the other hand, the alien bumble bee discriminated less with respect to sugar content per visited flower, but visited more flowers per minute. Workers of the native bumble bee harvested ~70% more sugar per unit of time than those of the alien species in absolute terms, and a similar amount when sugar harvested was expressed as a percentage of body mass. In contrast to expectation, the opportunistic foraging of the alien bumblebee was not more efficient and therefore cannot explain the ecological extinction of the native species through exploitative competition. These findings suggest that the displacement of the native species by the alien may be driven by other factors, such as the associated introduction of novel diseases or parasites.     

Pink flower preference in sunbirds does not translate into plant fitness differences in a polymorphic Erica species

Bird-pollinated plants typically have reddish flowers, but it is not clear whether this trait can be attributed to selection by birds. Here we experimentally test for the first time the foraging behaviour of sunbirds in relation to flower colour, using the Orange-breasted Sunbird Anthobaphes violacea (Nectariniidae) and the colour dimorphic Erica perspicua (Ericaceae). Pink and white flower morphotypes co-flower in intermixed populations and have similar nectar volumes and concentrations. Using floral arrays in a field aviary, we found that sunbirds preferred pink flowers; 95 % of their first choices were to pink inflorescences and they visited and probed more pink inflorescences and flowers, respectively. We also tested for flower constancy (the tendency to move between same colour rather than different colour morphotypes), but found no evidence for this in the sequence of their foraging choices, indicating that this mechanism did not maintain flower colour differences in sympatry. There was evidence for optimal foraging: 80 % of moves were to adjacent inflorescences. Unexpectedly, the preference for pink flowers observed in the aviary did not translate into a female fitness advantage for this morphotype in the field, since no difference is found in natural pollination rate, fruit or seed set. This may be because the minimization of flight distances between plants is the primary factor in sunbird foraging choices, overriding their colour preference. Antagonistic nectar robbers did not act as a selective force on the polymorphism, since nectar-robbing rates were equal between white and pink morphotypes in the field.     

An Assemblage of Hummingbird-pollinated Flowers in a Montane Forest in Southeastern Brazil

Relationships between ornithophilous flowers and hummingbirds have been little studied in southern South America, where hummingbird species richness is low. We studied an ornithophilous flower assemblage and the hummingbird pollinators in a montane forest in southeastern Brazil. Twenty-three native hummingbird-pollinated plant species in 21 genera and 14 families were observed. Bromeliaceae, Fabaceae, Gesneriaceae, and Lobeliaceae are represented by more than one species within the assemblage. Flower shapes vary from narrow tube to bowl-shape, but tubular flowers prevail. The variety of flower shapes and sizes results in diverse pollen placement on the body parts of hummingbird visitors, although pollen is deposited mostly on the bill. Sugar concentration in nectar averages 22.1%, and nectar volume per flower averages 16.9 μl. The plant populations bloom for one month to year-round, and their flowering approaches the steady-state pattern. Four flower subsets may be defined within the assemblage, each subset related to the bill size and foraging habits of the most frequent bird visitor. Of the six species of hummingbirds recorded at the study site, four are common and largely resident. The four hummingbirds differ in bill size, body mass, and favoured foraging sites, attributes which reflect their favoured flower subsets. One hermit and one trochiline hummingbird share most of the flower species they use, these two birds being the major pollinators within the flower assemblage. This montane forest community may be viewed as medium-rich in ornithophilous flower species and poor in hummingbird species.     

Learning in the nectar foraging behaviour of Helicoverpa armigera

Abstract .1. Learning may enable insects to obtain nectar from flowers more efficiently. Learning in nectar foraging has been shown primarily in studies of bees and butterflies. Here, learning is demonstrated in the nectar foraging behaviour of a noctuid moth, Helicoverpa armigera .
2. The present studies show that: (1) previous experience with a flowering host species increases the probability of that species being selected for nectar foraging, and (2) previous experience of a particular flower type (food source at bottom or top of the corolla tube) increases the likelihood of the food source being found when that flower type is being searched.
3. The implications of these findings for understanding the pattern of oviposition observed in wild populations of this important pest species are discussed.     

Competition for nectar resources does not affect bee foraging tactic constancy

1. Competition alters animal foraging, including promoting the use of alternative resources. It may also impact how animals feed when they are able to handle the same food with more than one tactic. Competition likely impacts both consumers and their resources through its effects on food handling, but this topic has received little attention. 2. Bees often use two tactics for extracting nectar from flowers: they can visit at the flower opening, or rob nectar from holes at the base of flowers. Exploitative competition for nectar is thought to promote nectar robbing. If so, higher competition among floral visitors should reduce constancy to a single foraging tactic as foragers will seek food using all possible tactics. To test this prediction, field observations and two experiments involving bumble bees visiting three montane Colorado plant species (Mertensia ciliata, Linaria vulgaris, Corydalis caseana) were used under various levels of inter- and intra-specific competition for nectar. 3. In general, individual bumble bees remained constant to a single foraging tactic, independent of competition levels. However, bees that visited M. ciliata in field observations decreased their constancy and increased nectar robbing rates as visitation rates by co-visitors increased. 4. While tactic constancy was high overall regardless of competition intensity, this study highlights some intriguing instances in which competition and tactic constancy may be linked. Further studies investigating the cognitive underpinnings of tactic constancy should provide insight on the ways in which animals use alternative foraging tactics to exploit resources.     

What do foraging hummingbirds maximize?

Summary Hainsworth and Wolf (1976) reported that under certain conditions hummingbirds made food choices which did not maximize their net rate of energy intake while foraging. They concluded that the birds were not foraging optimally. We show here that their birds probably maximized a different utility function, the net energy per unit volume consumed (NEVC), which appears to be an optimal choice on a time scale longer than that of a foraging bout. Our own experiments with Archilochus colubris support the conclusion that hummingbirds make foraging decisions that maximize NEVC. A simulation model shows that, in nature, NEVC maximization would require fewer foraging trips and visits to fewer flowers per day to balance daily energy budgets. For territorial birds this can lead to smaller territory sizes and reduced costs of territorial defense. Plants that evolutionarily increase corolla length to enhance pollinator specificity need only increase nectar concentration slightly to maintain the same net energy per unit volume consumed (NEVC) by a given hummingbird pollinator.     

Can flower constancy in nectaring butterflies be explained by Darwin’s interference hypothesis?

 When foraging for nectar many insects exhibit flower constancy (a preference for flower species which they have previously visited) and frequently ignore rewarding flowers of other species. Darwin proposed the favoured explanation for this behaviour, hypothesizing that learning of handling skills for one flower species interferes with the ability to recall handling skills for previously learned species. A crucial element of this hypothesis is that savings in handling time resulting from constancy must exceed increases in travelling time necessitated by ignoring other suitable species. A convincing quantification of this trade-off has not been achieved and tests to date on bumblebees indicate that savings in handling time are too small to offset an increase in travelling time. To assess further the validity of Darwin’s hypothesis, handling and flight times of the butterfly, Thymelicus flavus, were measured under natural conditions, and the abundance and reward provided by the available flower species quantified to enable estimation of foraging efficiency. Butterflies exhibited a mean increase in handling time of 0.85 s per flower associated with switching between flower species, although the magnitude of this difference varied greatly among flower species. Switching was not associated with a decrease in travelling time, contrary to expectation. Switching was more frequent following a lower than average reward from the last flower visited. In butterflies, flights serve functions other than movement between nectar sources, such as mate location (unlike worker bees). Hence constancy may be a viable strategy to reduce time spent in handling flowers and increase time available for other activities. Although savings in handling time may be small, Darwin’s interference hypothesis remains a valid explanation for flower constancy in foraging butterflies. Received: 27 January 1997 / Accepted: 5 June 1997     

Honey bee foraging profitability and round dance correlates

Summary The purpose is to examine the relationships between several aspects of the honey bee's round dance and the caloric costs and gains and net gains per time experienced by bees while foraging between two artificial flowers. The distance between the two flowers and the concentration of nectar rewards were varied. Nine bees were tested, each over several days. Of the three dance variables examined, the number of reversals in the dance per minute (RATE) most often gave the highest and consistently signed correlation coefficients when paired with the mean caloric reward received per flower visit (CALGAIN), the net caloric gain per unit time (NET), and the mean caloric cost to fly to and visit a flower (CALCOST). In general, RATE is positively correlated with CALGAIN (range of positive coefficients, 0.12 to 0.50) and NET (range, 0.15 to 0.40) and negatively correlated with CALCOST (range, –0.01 to –0.28). Additionally, the probability of dancing after foraging is generally positively associated with CALGAIN and negatively associated with CALCOST. The results suggest that caloric gains and costs may be integrated by the bee and output as a measure of profitability in the form of the round dance. This information may be communicated to potential recruits, although this is not demonstrated.     

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.     

Determinants of foraging profitability in two nectarivorous butterflies

ABSTRACT.

• 1 I studied flower selection and foraging energetics of Agraulis vanillae L. (Nymphalidae) and Phoebis sennae (Pieridae), two butterfly species common to north central Florida. I identified the major nectar resources exploited by several populations of these butterflies and, for each plant species, measured available nectar volumes and concentrations, corolla lengths, and density. I quantified foraging behaviour of each butterfly species at each nectar source (flower visitation rate and percentage of foraging time in flight), and used these data to estimate the net rate of energy intake of each butterfly species at each nectar source.
• 2 Estimated mean energy contents of individual flowers of the eleven exploited plant species spanned three orders of magnitude, ranging between 0.015 and 9.27 joules. Mean energy content of individual flowers was strongly correlated with mean foraging profit of both butterfly species.
• 3 Mean nectar volume strongly influenced energy content and varied widely within and among species, ranging from 0.0076 to 1.853 μ1. Nectar concentration varied between 17.1% and 40.4% sucrose-equivalents. Nectar volume was the best single predictor of foraging profitability (correlation coefficients of 0.994 and 0.984 for Phoebis and Agraulis respectively). Corolla length also strongly affected foraging profitability for both butterfly species; flower species with longer corollas were generally more profitable.
• 4 Flower density and nectar concentration showed weak or nonsignificant associations with foraging profitability.
• 5 The usefulness and limitations of these floral characteristics as bases for foraging selectivity, and the selective pressures foraging butterflies might place on the visited plants are discussed.

     

Dynamics of forager arrivals and nectar renewal in flowers of Anchusa strigosa

Summary Long-tongued Anthophora spp. bees collecting nectar from flowers of Anchusa strigosa (Boraginaceae) exhibit systematic foraging. Successive forager arrivals at individual flowers are not independent, and the time elapsed between successive arrivals at a particular flower is distributed more uniformly than be expected on the basis of a random arrival process. Distributions of inter-arrival time for individual flowers show standard deviation/mean ratios of 0.44–0.79, a range which is consistent with results obtained for two other plant-pollinator systems. The rate at which nectar is renewed between successive forager arrivals is independent of the amount of nectar in the flower, and the renewal process is strongly linear. Practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

Gloss,Colour and Grip: Multifunctional Epidermal Cell Shapes in Bee- and Bird-Pollinated Flowers

Flowers bear the function of filters supporting the attraction of pollinators as well as the deterrence of floral antagonists. The effect of epidermal cell shape on the visual display and tactile properties of flowers has been evaluated only recently. In this study we quantitatively measured epidermal cell shape, gloss and spectral reflectance of flowers pollinated by either bees or birds testing three hypotheses: The first two hypotheses imply that bee-pollinated flowers might benefit from rough surfaces on visually-active parts produced by conical epidermal cells, as they may enhance the colour signal of flowers as well as the grip on flowers for bees. In contrast, bird-pollinated flowers might benefit from flat surfaces produced by flat epidermal cells, by avoiding frequent visitation from non-pollinating bees due to a reduced colour signal, as birds do not rely on specific colour parameters while foraging. Moreover, flat petal surfaces in bird-pollinated flowers may hamper grip for bees that do not touch anthers and stigmas while consuming nectar and thus, are considered as nectar thieves. Beside this, the third hypothesis implies that those flower parts which are vulnerable to nectar robbing of bee- as well as bird-pollinated flowers benefit from flat epidermal cells, hampering grip for nectar robbing bees. Our comparative data show in fact that conical epidermal cells are restricted to visually-active parts of bee-pollinated flowers, whereas robbing-sensitive parts of bee-pollinated as well as the entire floral surface of bird-pollinated flowers possess on average flat epidermal cells. However, direct correlations between epidermal cell shape and colour parameters have not been found. Our results together with published experimental studies show that epidermal cell shape as a largely neglected flower trait might act as an important feature in pollinator attraction and avoidance of antagonists, and thus may contribute to the partitioning of flower-visitors.     

Why do honeybees reject certain flowers?

Summary Honeybees often approach flowers of Lotus corniculatus and then fly away without attempting to extract nectar. These rejected flowers contained 41% less nectar than my random sample. The accepted flowers contained 24% more nectar than my random sample. The differences among these three flower-groups were due to differences in the percent of empty flowers in each group rather than the differences in the absolute amount of nectar. Honeybees increased their foraging efficiency by accepting less empty flowers and rejecting more empty flowers than would be expected if they foraged randomly. There are two possible mechanisms for this discrimination-behavior: either the bees are smelling nectar odor or they are smelling bee scent left by previous visitors to the flower. My results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that bees are basing their decision on nectar smell and suggest that they are using bee scent as a means of identifying empty flowers.