Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 377–383 | Cite as

Do rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) use visual beacons?

  • T. Andrew Hurly
  • Simone Franz
  • Susan D. Healy
Short Communication


Animals are often assumed to use highly conspicuous features of a goal to head directly to that goal (‘beaconing’). In the field it is generally assumed that flowers serve as beacons to guide pollinators. Artificial hummingbird feeders are coloured red to serve a similar function. However, anecdotal reports suggest that hummingbirds return to feeder locations in the absence of the feeder (and thus the beacon). Here we test these reports for the first time in the field, using the natural territories of hummingbirds and manipulating flowers on a scale that is ecologically relevant to the birds. We compared the predictions from two distinct hypotheses as to how hummingbirds might use the visual features of rewards: the distant beacon hypothesis and the local cue hypothesis. In two field experiments, we found no evidence that rufous hummingbirds used a distant visual beacon to guide them to a rewarded location. In no case did birds abandon their approach to the goal location from a distance; rather they demonstrated remarkable accuracy of navigation by approaching to within about 70 cm of a rewarded flower’s original location. Proximity varied depending on the size of the training flower: birds flew closer to a previously rewarded location if it had been previously signalled with a small beacon. Additionally, when provided with a beacon at a new location, birds did not fly directly to the new beacon. Taken together, we believe these data demonstrate that these hummingbirds depend little on visual characteristics to beacon to rewarded locations, but rather that they encode surrounding landmarks in order to reach the goal and then use the visual features of the goal as confirmation that they have arrived at the correct location.


Beacon Local cue Landmark Rufous hummingbirds 



We thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for funding SF and TAH and the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) for funding SDH. We thank David Shuker, Wolfgang Wiltschko and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Mark Klassen, Jono Henderson, Melissa Bateson, Erica Jeffery, Chelsea Matisz, Becci Dearnley, Melissa Groeneweg, Erika Droessler, Kim Urbaniak, Lucy Asher and Craig Barnett for their cooking and general field work support. These experiments comply with the laws of Canada and were conducted with the approval of the University of Lethbridge Animal Welfare Committee and under permits from Alberta Sustainable Research Development and Environment Canada.


  1. Brodbeck DR (1994) Memory for spatial and local cues: a comparison of a storing and a nonstoring species. Anim Learn Behav 22:119–133Google Scholar
  2. Brown GS, Gass CL (1993) Spatial association learning by hummingbirds. Anim Behav 46:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng K, Sherry DF (1992) Landmark-based spatial memory in birds (Parus atricapillus and Columba livia)—the use of edges and distances to represent spatial positions. J Comp Psychol 106:331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collett TS, Zeil J (1998) Places and landmarks: an arthropod perspective. In: Healy S (ed) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 18–53Google Scholar
  5. Cook RG, Tauro TL (1999) Object-goal positioning influences spatial representation in rats. Anim Cogn 2:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freire R, Munro U, Rogers LJ, Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2005) Chickens orient using the magnetic compass. Curr Biol 15:R620–R621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Godard R (1991) Long-term memory of individual neighbors in a migratory songbird. Nature 350:228–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould-Beierle KL, Kamil AC (1996) The use of local and global cues by Clark’s nutcrackers, Nucifraga columbiana. Anim Behav 52:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould-Beierle KL, Kamil AC (1998) Use of landmarks in three species of food-storing corvids. Ethology 104:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham P, Fauria K, Collett TS (2003) The influence of beacon-aiming on the routes of wood ants. J Exp Biol 206:535–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Healy SD, Hurly TA (1995) Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus): a field test. Anim Learn Behav 23:63–68Google Scholar
  12. Healy SD, Hurly TA (1998) Rufous hummingbirds’ (Selasphorus rufus) memory for flowers: patterns or actual spatial locations? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 24:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2001) Rufous hummingbirds’ memory for flower location. Anim Behav 61:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2006) Spatial relational learning in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). Anim Cogn 9:201–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogarth LA, Roberts WA, Roberts S, Abroms B (2000) Spatial localization of a goal: beacon homing and landmark piloting by rats on a radial maze. Anim Learn Behav 28:43–58Google Scholar
  16. Humber JM, Brodbeck DR, Warkentin IG (2009) Use of spatial and colour cues by foraging pine siskins (Carduelis pinus): a field study. Behav Process 80:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurly TA, Healy SD (1996) Memory for flowers in rufous hummingbirds: location or local visual cues? Anim Behav 51:1149–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurly TA, Healy SD (2002) Cue learning by rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 28:209–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamil AC, Jones JE (2000) Geometric rule learning by Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 26:439–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamil AC, Goodyear AJ, Cheng K (2001) The use of landmarks by Clark’s nutcrackers: first tests of a new model. J Navig 54:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacDonald SE, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Cheng K (2004) Strategies in landmark use by children, adults, and marmoset monkeys. Learn Motiv 35:322–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller RS, Tamm S, Sutherland GD, Gass CL (1985) Cues for orientation in hummingbird foraging: color and position. Can J Zool 63:18–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pearce JM, Ward-Robinson J, Good M, Fussell C, Aydin A (2001) Influence of a beacon on spatial learning based on the shape of the test environment. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 27:329–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Redhead ES, Roberts A, Good M, Pearce JM (1997) Interaction between piloting and beacon homing by rats in a swimming pool. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 23:340–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sherry DF, Duff SJ (1996) Behavioural and neural bases of orientation in food-storing birds. J Exp Biol 199:165–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Spetch ML (1995) Overshadowing in landmark learning—touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:16Google Scholar
  28. Spetch ML, Rust TB, Kamil AC, Jones JE (2003) Searching by rules: pigeons’ (Columba livia) landmark-based search according to constant bearing or constant distance. J Comp Psychol 117:123–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2000) Searching for the center: spatial cognition in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 26:477–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tse D, Langston RF, Kakeyama M, Bethus I, Spooner PA, Wood ER, Witter MP, Morris RGM (2007) Schemas and memory consolidation. Science 316:76–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Waller D, Lippa Y (2007) Landmarks as beacons and associative cues: their role in route learning. Mem Cogn 35:910–924Google Scholar
  32. Wiltschko W, Balda RP, Jahnel M, Wiltschko R (1999) Sun compass orientation in seed-caching corvids: its role in spatial memory. Anim Cogn 2:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Andrew Hurly
    • 1
  • Simone Franz
    • 1
  • Susan D. Healy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada
  2. 2.Schools of Biology and PsychologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations