, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 198–213 | Cite as

Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars —dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs

  • Amy J. Heyneman
Original Papers


A model is developed to elucidate the determinants of sugar concentrations in flower nectars. This model analyses the efficiency of sugar intake, or energy flux, which for nectarivores closely approximates the rate of net energy gain. For both steady state and some non-steady flows of nectars, this energy flux is shown to be maximal at particular sugar concentrations referred to here as the maximum flux concentration. Higher concentrations actually yield lower energy intake rates because the concomitant rapid increase in viscosity sharply reduces the rate of fluid intake. For pure sucrose solutions, the maximum flux concentration is 22%. For flower nectars, which are chemically more complex, the maximum flux concentration is predicted to be closer to 26%, using the first viscosity measures obtained for flower nectars. This concentration is shown to be essentially independent of the pollinator's feeding organ morphology and of the type of potential inducing nectar flow. It is proposed that this concentration applies for virtually all pollinators that select nectars with maximal energy flux.

However not all pollinators are expected to select such nectars because this 26% concentration is not necessarily “optimal”. The model predicts that optimal sugar concentrations vary for particular pollinators as a function of two primary factors: (1) the energy flux derived from the nectar, as discussed above, as well as (2) the relative contribution of transit costs to overall foraging costs. Relatively “dilute” nectars, with sugar concentrations close to the maximal flux value, are predicted for flowers pollinated by organisms that minimize feeding time to reduce high feeding costs, such as that of hovering or of exposure to enhanced predation while feeding. More concentrated nectars are predicted for flowers pollinated by nectarivores that incur high foraging transit costs relative to feeding costs.

Flowers pollinated by hovering pollinators, including many hummingbirds, hawkmoths and bats, have nectars with mean sugar concentrations in close accord with the 26% maximum flux concentration predicted. Moreover, these nectars have relatively low concentrations of nonsugar constituents, which increase viscosity and thereby decrease sugar flux. Over 75% of the flowers examined in this study, which are pollinated primarily by territorial hummingbird species, provide nectars that allow sugar uptake with an efficiency of 90% or greater of the maximal value. According to the model, these data suggest that feeding costs of these pollinators far outweigh foraging transit costs. In contrast, the model suggests that flower nectars taken by traplining hummingbirds and by bees, with sugar concentrations significantly above the maximum flux value, reflect the higher costs of foraging flight relative to costs of feeding for these pollinators.

Increasing temperature decreases nectar viscosity, and thereby increases absolute nectar uptake rates sharply. This leads to a number of predictions regarding foraging behavior as well as flower location, orientation, and color. However, the maximum flux concentration is shown to be practically invariable over a wide range of temperatures-increasing by only 2% sugar from 10°C to 30°C. Thus, contrary to previous expectations, little change in average sugar concentrations of flowers pollinated by particular groups of nectarivores is expected from cooler to warmer regions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker HG (1975) Sugar concentrations in nectars from hummingbird flowers. Biotropica 7:37–41Google Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1977a) Non-sugar chemical constituents of nectar. Apidologie 8:349–356Google Scholar
  3. Baker HG (1977b) Chemical aspects of the pollination biology of woody plants in the tropics. In: Tomlinson PB, Zimmermann M (eds), Tropical Trees as Living Systems. Cambridge Univ Press, New York, pp 57–82Google Scholar
  4. Baker HG, Baker I (1975) Studies of nectar-constitution and pollinatorplant coevolution. In: Gilbert LE, Raven PH (eds), Animal and Plant Coevolution. Univ of Texas press, Austin, pp 100–138Google Scholar
  5. Baker HG, Baker I (1982a) Floral nectar sugar constituents in relation to pollinator type. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds), Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology. Van Nortrand-Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker HG, Baker I (1982b) Chemical constituents of nectar in relation to pollination mechanisms and phylogeny. In: Nitecki MH (ed), Biochemical Aspects of Evolutionary Biology. Univ Chicago Press, Chicago pp 131–171Google Scholar
  7. Baker HG, Opler PA, Baker I (1978) A comparison of the amino acid complements of floral and extrafloral nectars. Bot Gaz 139:322–332Google Scholar
  8. Baker I, Baker HG (1976a) Analyses of amino acids in nectar. Phytochem Bull 9:4–7Google Scholar
  9. Baker I, Baker HG (1976b) Analyses of amino acids in flower nectars of hybrids and their parents, with phylogenetic implications. New Phytol 76:87–98Google Scholar
  10. Barber EJ (1966) Calculation of density and viscosity of sucrose solutions as a function of concentration and temperature. National Cancer Institute Monograph 21, The Development of Zonal Centrifuges: 219–239Google Scholar
  11. Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN (1960) Transport Phenomena. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolten AB, Feinsinger P (1978) Why do hummingbird flowers secrete dilute nectar? Biotropica 10:307–309Google Scholar
  13. Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I (1979) On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia (Berlin) 41:301–304Google Scholar
  14. Browne CA, Zerban FW (1941) Physical and Chemical Methods of Sugar Analysis, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Calder WA III (1979) On the temperature-dependency of optimal nectar concentrations for birds. J theor Biol 78:185–196Google Scholar
  16. Calder WA III, Hiebert SM (1980) Diuresis and solute losses of hummingbirds. Federation Proceedings 39:588Google Scholar
  17. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Biol 9:129–135Google Scholar
  18. Corbet SA, Willmer PG (1981) The nectar of Justicia and Columnea: composition and concentration in a humid tropical climate. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:412–418Google Scholar
  19. De Benedictis PA, Gill FB, Hainsworth FR, Pyke GH, Wolf LL (1978) Optimal meal size in hummingbirds. Amer Natur 112:301–316Google Scholar
  20. DesGranges J-L (1977) Interactions among resident and migrant hummingbirds in Mexico. Ph. D. thesis, Dept. of Biology, McGill Univ, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  21. DesGranges J-L (1978) Organization of a tropical nectar feeding bird guild in a variable environment. Living Bird 17:199–236Google Scholar
  22. Dunlop-Pianka H, Boggs CL, Gilbert LE (1977) Ovarian dynamics in heliconiine butterflies: Programmed senescence versus eternal youth. Science 197:487–490Google Scholar
  23. Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99:573–576Google Scholar
  24. Fasman GD (ed) (1975) Viscosity and density tables. In: Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Vol 1: Physical and Chemical Data, 3rd edition. CRC Press, Cleveland, p 415–418Google Scholar
  25. Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monogr 46:257–291Google Scholar
  26. Feinsinger P, Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among neotropical nectar-feeding birds. Amer Zool 18:779–795Google Scholar
  27. Gass CL (1978) Experimental studies of foraging in complex laboratory environments. Amer Zool 18:617–626Google Scholar
  28. Gass CL, Montgomerie RD (1981) Hummingbird foraging behavior: decisionmaking and energy-regulation. In: A. Kamil and T. Sargent (eds), Foraging Behavior. Garland STPM Press, New York, p 159–194Google Scholar
  29. Gates DM (1980) Biophysical Ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilbert LE (1972) Pollen feeding and reproductive biology of Heliconius butterflies. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 69:1403–1407Google Scholar
  31. Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46 A:65–78Google Scholar
  32. Hainsworth FR (1981) Energy regulation in hummingbirds. Amer Sci 69:420–429Google Scholar
  33. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1972) Energetics of nectar extraction in a small, high altitude, tropical hummingbird, Selasphorus flammula. J Comp Physiol 80:377–387Google Scholar
  34. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia 25:101–113Google Scholar
  35. Heinrich B (1975) Energetics of pollination. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:139–170Google Scholar
  36. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee Economics. Harvard Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Heyneman AJ, Hallet B (in prep.) Field measure of viscosity for microliter quantities of nectarGoogle Scholar
  38. Hiebert SM, Calder WA III (in press) Sodium, potassium, and chloride in floral nectars; energy-free contributions to refractive index and salt balance. EcologyGoogle Scholar
  39. Howell DJ (1974) Bats and pollen: Physiological aspects of the syndrome of chiropterophily. Comp Biochem Physiol 48A:263–276Google Scholar
  40. Inouye DW, Favre ND, Lanum JA, Levine DM, Meyers JB, Roberts MS, Tsao FC, Wang Y-Y (1980) The effects of nonsugar nectar constituents on estimates of nectar energy content. Ecology 61:992–996Google Scholar
  41. Kevan PG (1975) Sun-tracking solar furnaces in High Arctic flowers: significance for pollination and insects. Science 189:723–726Google Scholar
  42. Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1979) On the mechanics and energetics of nectar feeding in butterflies. J theor Biol 76:167–179Google Scholar
  43. Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1983) Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategy in hummingbirds: energetics, tongue morphology, and licking behavior. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:214–226Google Scholar
  44. Knutson RM (1979) Plants in heat. Natural History 88:42–47Google Scholar
  45. Lamarck JB de (1778) Flore francaise 3: 1150. ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Meeuse BJD (1978) The physiology of some sapromyophilous flowers. In: AJ Richards (ed), Pollination of Flowers by Insects. Academic Press, London p 97–104Google Scholar
  47. Rennycuick CJ (1968) Power requirements for horizontal flight in the pigeon, Columba livia. J Exp Biol. 49:527–555Google Scholar
  48. Pyke GH, Waser NM (1981) The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13:260–270Google Scholar
  49. Reid RC, Sherwood TK (1958) Properties of Gases and Liquids. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Scogin R (1980) Floral pigments and nectar constituents of two bat-pollinated plants: coloration, nutritional, and energetic considerations. Biotropica 12:273–276Google Scholar
  51. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1964) Desert Animals: Physiological Problems of Heat and Water. Oxford Univ Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheithauer W (1967) Hummingbirds. Crowell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith I (1969) Chromatographic and Electrophoretic Techniques, Vol I, Chromatography, 3rd Edition. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Southwick EE, Pimentel D (1981) Energy efficiency of honey production by bees. BioScience 31:730–732Google Scholar
  55. Stiles FG (1976) Taste preferences, color preferences, and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78:10–26Google Scholar
  56. Sutherland S (in prep.) Nectar concentration in hummingbird flowers: Maximizing the instantaneous rate of energy intakeGoogle Scholar
  57. Washburn EW (1921) The dynamics of capillary flow. Physical Review 17:273–283Google Scholar
  58. Weast RC (ed) (1976) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. CRC Press, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  59. Willmer PG (1980) The effects of insect visitors on nectar constituents in temperate plants. Oecologia 47:270–277Google Scholar
  60. Willmer PG, Corbet SA (1981) Temporal and microclimatic partitioning of the floral resources of Justicia aurea amongst a concourse of pollen vectors and nectar robbers. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:67–78Google Scholar
  61. Wolf LL, Hainsworth FR, Stiles FG (1972) Energetics of foraging: Rate and efficiency of nectar extraction by hummingbirds. Science 176:1351–1352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy J. Heyneman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations