Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 88, Issue 4, pp 425–431 | Cite as

Food quality and foraging efficiency

The efficiency of sugar assimilation by hummingbirds
  • F. Reed Hainsworth
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    Throughout the breeding season of hummingbirds in southeastern Arizona flowers provide hummingbirds with nectar equivalent to sucrose concentrations of 0.24–2.10 M, and nectar from most flowers is composed only of sucrose, glucose, and/or fructose.

     
  2. 2.

    When fed sucrose solutions of 0.5–2.0 M hummingbirds are at least 97–99% efficient in assimilating sugars.

     
  3. 3.

    The efficiency with which hummingbirds can extract nectar from flowers will depend on the size of the bird species, nectar concentration in flowers, and factors influencing rate of nectar intake.

     
  4. 4.

    Although species with low assimilation efficiencies (poor quality diets) may achieve sufficient foraging efficiencies by processing large quantities of food at low caloric cost, a high assimilation efficiency from a high quality food may be important for hummingbirds which employ an energetically costly foraging strategy.

     

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, J. H., Lasiewski, R. C.: Metabolism of weasels: The cost of being long and thin. Ecology53, 939–943 (1972)Google Scholar
  2. Calder, W. A.: Temperature relationships and nesting of the Calliope Hummingbird. Condor73, 314–321 (1971)Google Scholar
  3. Duke, G. E., Ciganek, J. G., Evanson, O. A.: Food consumption and energy, water, and nitrogen budgets in captive great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol.44, 283–292 (1973)Google Scholar
  4. Emlen, J. M.: The role of time and energy in food preference. Amer. Naturalist100, 611–617 (1966)Google Scholar
  5. Gessaman, J. A.: Bioenergetics of the snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca). Arctic and Alpine Res.4, 223–238 (1972)Google Scholar
  6. Graber, R. R.: Food and oxygen consumption in three species of owls (Strigidae). Condor64, 473–487 (1962).Google Scholar
  7. Grant, K. A., Grant, V.: Hummingbirds and their flowers. New York: Columbia Univ. Press 1968Google Scholar
  8. Greenewalt, C. H.: Hummingbirds. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. 1960Google Scholar
  9. Hainsworth, F. R.: On the tongue of a hummingbird: Its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.46, 65–78 (1973)Google Scholar
  10. Hainsworth, F. R., Wolf, L. L.: Energetics of nectar extraction in a small, high altitude, tropical hummingbird,Selasphorus flammula. J. comp. Physiol.80, 377–387 (1972a)Google Scholar
  11. Hainsworth, F. R., Wolf, L. L.: Power for hovering flight in relation to body size in hummingbirds. Amer. Naturalist106, 589–596 (1972b)Google Scholar
  12. Hainsworth, F. R., Wolf, L. L.: Crop volume, nectar concentration, and hummingbird energetics. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.42, 359–366 (1972c)Google Scholar
  13. Heinrich, B.: Energetics of temperature regulation and foraging in a bumblebee,Bombus terricola Kirby. J. comp. Physiol.77, 49–64 (1972)Google Scholar
  14. Hocking, B.: Insect-flower associations in the high arctic with special reference to nectar. Oikos19, 359–388 (1968)Google Scholar
  15. Kendeigh, S. C.: Energy requirements for existence in relation to size of bird. Condor72, 60–65 (1970)Google Scholar
  16. Kitchell, J. F., Windell, J. T.: Energy budget for the lizard,Anolis carolinensis. Physiol. Zool.45, 178–188 (1972)Google Scholar
  17. Lasiewski, R. C.: Oxygen consumption of torpid, resting, active, and flying hummingbirds. Physiol. Zool.36, 122–140 (1963)Google Scholar
  18. Mullen, R. K.: Respiratory metabolism and body water turnover rates ofPerognathus formosus in its natural environment. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.32, 259–265 (1970)Google Scholar
  19. Mullen, R. K., Chew, R. M.: Estimating the energy metabolism of free-livingPerognathus formosus: A comparison of direct and indirect methods. Ecology54, 633–637 (1973)Google Scholar
  20. Pendergast, B. A., Boag, D. A.: Nutritional aspects of the diet of Spruce Grouse in central Alberta. Condor73, 437–443 (1971)Google Scholar
  21. Percival, M. S.: Types of nectar in angiosperms. New Phytol.60, 235–281 (1961)Google Scholar
  22. Schoener, T. W.: Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology49, 123–141 (1968)Google Scholar
  23. Schoener, T. W.: Optimal size and specialization in constant and fluctuating environments: An energy-time approach, p. 103–114. In: Woodwell, G. M. & Smith H. H. (eds.), Diversity and stability in ecological systems. Brookhaven Symp. Biol. No 22 (1969)Google Scholar
  24. Schoener, T. W.: Theory of feeding strategies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.2, 369–104 (1971)Google Scholar
  25. Stiles, F. G.: Time, energy, and territorially of the Anna Hummingbird (Calypte anna). Science173, 818–821 (1971)Google Scholar
  26. Utter, J. M., LeFebre, E. A.: Daily energy expenditure of Purple Martins (Progne subis) during the breeding season: Estimates using D2O18 and time budget methods. Ecology54, 597–604 (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Webb, N. R., Elmes, G. W.: Energy budget for adultSteganacarus magnus (Acari). Oikos23, 359–365 (1972)Google Scholar
  28. White, J. J.: Bioenergetics of the woodlouse,Tracheoniscus rathkei Brandt in relation to litter decomposition in a deciduous forest. Ecology49, 694–704 (1968)Google Scholar
  29. Willson, M. F., Harmeson, J. C.: Seed preferences and digestive efficiency of Cardinals and Song Sparrows. Condor75, 225–234 (1973)Google Scholar
  30. Wolf, L. L., Hainsworth, F. R.: Time and energy budgets of territorial hummingbirds. Ecology52, 980–988 (1971)Google Scholar
  31. Wolf, L. L., Hainsworth, F. R., Stiles, F. G.: Energetics of foraging: Rate and efficiency of nectar extraction by hummingbirds. Science176, 1351–1352 (1972)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Reed Hainsworth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologySyracuse UniversitySyracuse

Personalised recommendations