Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 225–229 | Cite as

Floral arrangements and hummingbird feeding

  • F. Reed Hainsworth
  • Theresa Mercier
  • Larry L. Wolf
Original Papers

Summary

The influence of simulated inflorescence design on feeding behavior of 3 male Eugenes fulgens (Rivoli's hummingbird) and one female Lampornis clemenciae (Bluethroated hummingbird) was studied in the laboratory using artificial flowers. Five two-dimensional and three three-dimensional arrangements provided constant rewards per artificial flower. Visits to two-dimensional arrangements had more flower visits per feeding bout, proportionally more flower revisits, and shorter time between flowers than visits to three-dimensional arrangements. This suggests inflorescence design may influence pollen movement by hummingbirds.

Keywords

Artificial Flower Pollen Movement Flower Visit Constant Reward Floral Arrangement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bawa KS (1980) Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:15–39Google Scholar
  2. Corbet SA, Fallows CM, Harrison T, Hartley G (1981) Why do nectar-foraging bees and wasps work upwards on inflorescences? Oecologia 51:79–83Google Scholar
  3. Daniel WW (1978) Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Houghton Mifflin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252Google Scholar
  5. Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979) Foraging by bumble bees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870Google Scholar
  6. Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171Google Scholar
  7. Marden JH, Waddington KD (1981) Floral choice by honey bees in relation to the relative distances to flowers. Physiol Entomol 6:431–435Google Scholar
  8. Morse DH (1980) The effect of nectar abundance on foraging patterns of bumble bees. Ecol Entomol 5:53–59Google Scholar
  9. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: testing the marginal value theorem. Amer Zool 18:739–752Google Scholar
  10. Pyke GH (1979) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: rule of movement between flowers within inflorescences. Anim Behav 27:1167–1181Google Scholar
  11. Pyke GH (1982) Foraging in bumblebees: rule of depature from an inflorescence. Can J Zool 60:417–428Google Scholar
  12. Thomson JD, Maddison WP, Plowright RC (1982) Behavior of bumble bee pollinators of Aralia hispida Vent. (Araliaceae). Oecologia 54:326–336Google Scholar
  13. Waddington KD (1980) Flight patterns of foraging bees relative to density of artificial flowers and distribution of nectar. Oecologia 44:199–204Google Scholar
  14. Waddington KD, Heinrich B (1981) Patterns of movement and floral choice by foraging bees. In: (A. Kamil and T Sargent, eds) Foraging Behavior: Ecological, Ethological and Psychological Approaches. Garland Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Willson MF, Rathke BJ (1974) Adaptive design of the floral display in Asclepias syriaca L. Amer Midland Natur 92:47–57Google Scholar
  16. Wolf LL, Hainsworth FR (1977) Temporal patterns of hummingbird feeding. Anim Behav 25:976–989Google Scholar
  17. Wyatt R (1982) Inflorescence architecture: how flower number, arrangement, and phenology affect pollination and fruit-set. Amer J Bot 69:585–594Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Reed Hainsworth
    • 1
  • Theresa Mercier
    • 1
  • Larry L. Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologySyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations