Literature DB >> 28313864

Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: an experimental analysis of hummingbirds.

Ethan J Temeles1, W Mark Roberts1.   

Abstract

We examined whether sexual differences in trophic morphology are associated with sexual differences in foraging behavior through two laboratory experiments on rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) designed to compare probing abilities (maximum extraction depths) and handling times of sexes at flowers. Bills of female S. rufus are about 10.5% longer than bills of males, and this difference was associated with sexual differences in foraging abilities. Maximum extraction depths of female S. rufus were significantly greater than those of males, and no overlap between the sexes was observed. Moreover, handling times of females were shorter than handling times of males at flowers having longer corollas (≥15 mm). Thus, because of their longer bills, female S. rufus have the potential to feed from longer flowers than males, and can do so more quickly. We suggest that no single mechanism is responsible for the evolution of sexual dimorphism in bill lengths of hummingbirds, but rather that the dimorphism probably reflects the combined effects of reproductive role division and intersexual food competition, and possibly, sexual selection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Foraging behavior; Hummingbirds; Plant-pollinator interactions; Sexual dimorphism; Trochilidae

Year:  1993        PMID: 28313864     DOI: 10.1007/BF00317307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  11 in total

1.  Why Are Male Hawks So Small?: For birds that eat birds, life is tough; this might explain why, unlike much of the rest of the avian world, females are bigger than males.

Authors:  R Lewin
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-06-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: Hypotheses and tests.

Authors:  A V Hedrick; E J Temeles
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 17.712

3.  Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters.

Authors:  Robert D Montgomerie
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  ECOLOGICAL CAUSES OF SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.

Authors:  Montgomery Slatkin
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  REPEATABILITY OF LOCOMOTOR PERFORMANCE IN NATURAL POPULATIONS OF THE LIZARD SCELOPORUS MERRIAMI.

Authors:  Raymond B Huey; Arthur E Dunham
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 6.  Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  R Shine
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 4.875

7.  MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer.

Authors:  R G O'Brien; M K Kaiser
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Nectar Characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds.

Authors:  F Reed Haisworth; Larry L Wolf
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  COMPONENTS OF PHENOTYPIC SELECTION: POLLEN EXPORT AND FLOWER COROLLA WIDTH IN IPOMOPSIS AGGREGATA.

Authors:  Diane R Campbell; Nickolas M Waser; Mary V Price; Elizabeth A Lynch; Randall J Mitchell
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers.

Authors:  V Grant; E J Temeles
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1992-10-15       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  4 in total

1.  A new dimension to hummingbird-flower relationships.

Authors:  Ethan J Temeles
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Asymmetric competition for nectar between a large nectar thief and a small pollinator: an energetic point of view.

Authors:  Eliška Padyšáková; Jan Okrouhlík; Mark Brown; Michael Bartoš; Štěpán Janeček
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 3.225

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

Authors:  C E Smith; J T Stevens; E J Temeles; P W Ewald; R J Hebert; R L Bonkovsky
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Shifting Paradigms in the Mechanics of Nectar Extraction and Hummingbird Bill Morphology.

Authors:  A Rico-Guevara; M A Rubega; K J Hurme; R Dudley
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2019-01-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.