Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 297–304 | Cite as

Interference asymmetries among age-sex classes of rufous hummingbirds during migratory stopovers

  • F. Lynn Carpenter
  • Mark A. Hixon
  • Robert W. Russell
  • David C. Paton
  • Ethan J. Temeles


Three age-sex classes of rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) overlap temporally and defend feeding territories during migratory stopovers in the Sierra Nevada of California. We demonstrate that these classes differ in their ability to secure and maintain high-quality feeding territories for refueling, and that these differences result in differences in resource use. Data on acquisition of territories, territory characteristics, and responses of territory owners to intruders suggest that several mechanisms are involved in determining dominance, involving sex- and age-related differences in wing disc loading, coloration, and experience. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding intraspecific variation in migration strategies.

Key words

Intraspecific dominance Territoriality Migration Stopovers Hummingbirds 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brodsky LM (1988) Ornament size influences mating success in male rock ptarmigan. Anim Behav 36:662–667Google Scholar
  2. Calder WA III (1976) Energetics of small body size and high latitude: the rufous hummingbird in coastal Alaska. Int J Biometeorol 20:23–35Google Scholar
  3. Calder WA III (1987) Southbound through Colorado: migration of rufous hummingbirds. Natl Geogr Res 3:40–51Google Scholar
  4. Calvo B, Furness RW (1992) A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds. Ring Migr 13:129–151Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter FL (1976) Plant-pollinator interactions in Hawaii: pollination energetics of Metrosideros collina (Myrtaceae). Ecology 57:1125–1144Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter FL (1983) Pollination energetics in avian communities: simple concepts and complex realities. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 215–234Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter FL (1987) Food abundance and territoriality: to defend or not to defend? Am Zool 27:387–399Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter FL, Paton DC, Hixon MA (1983) Weight gain and adjustment of feeding territory size in migrant hummingbirds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:7259–7263Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Paton DC, Temeles EJ, Russell RW (1991) Sexual differences in resource acquisition by migrant hummingbirds. Acta Congr Int Ornithol XX: 1156–1165Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Beuchat CA, Russell RW, Paton DC (1993a) Biphasic mass gain in migrant hummingbirds: body composition changes, torpor, and ecological significance. Ecology 74:1173–1182Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Temeles EJ, Russell RW, Paton DC (1993b) Exploitative compensation by subordinate age-sex classes of migrant rufous hummingbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:305–312Google Scholar
  12. Cristol DA, Nolan V, Ketterson ED (1990) Effect of prior residence on dominance status of dark-eyed juncos, Junco hyemalis. Anim Behav 40:580–586Google Scholar
  13. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria), the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147Google Scholar
  14. Ewald PW, Rohwer S (1980) Age, coloration and dominance in nonbreeding hummingbirds: a test of the asymmetry hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:273–279Google Scholar
  15. Feinsinger P, Chaplin SB (1975) On the relationship between wing disc loading and foraging strategy in hummingbirds. Am Nat 109:217–224Google Scholar
  16. Feinsinger P, Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among neotropical nectar-feeding birds. Am Zool 18:779–795Google Scholar
  17. Feisinger P, Colwell RK, Terborgh J, Chaplin SB (1979) Elevation and the morphology, flight energetics, and foraging ecology of tropical hummingbirds. Am Nat 113:481–497Google Scholar
  18. Fleischer RC, Johnston RF (1984) The relationships between winter climate and selection on body size of house sparrows. Can J Zool 62:405–410Google Scholar
  19. Gass CL (1979) Territory regulation, tenure, and migration in rufous hummingbirds. Can J Zool 57:914–923Google Scholar
  20. Gauthreaux SA Jr (1978) The ecological significance of behavioral dominance. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 3. Plenum Press, New York, pp 17–54Google Scholar
  21. Gauthreaux SA Jr (1982) The ecology and evolution of avian migration systems. In: Farner DS, King JR, Parkes KC (eds) Avian biology, vol 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 93–168Google Scholar
  22. Glase JC (1973) Ecology of social organization in the black-capped chickadee. Living Bird 12:235–267Google Scholar
  23. Grant KA, Grant V (1967) Effects of hummingbird migration on plant speciation in the California flora. Evolution 21:457–465Google Scholar
  24. Greenewalt CH (1975) The flight of birds. Trans Am Philos Soc 65:1–67Google Scholar
  25. Grubb TC Jr, Woodrey MS (1990) Sex, age, intraspecific dominance status, and the use of food by birds wintering in temperate-deciduous and cold-coniferous woodlands: a review. Stud Avian Biol 13:270–279Google Scholar
  26. Haberman SJ (1977) Log-linear models and frequency tables with small expected cell counts. Ann Statist 5:1148–1169Google Scholar
  27. Hepp GR, Hair JD (1984) Dominance in wintering waterfowl (Anatini): effects on distribution of sexes. Condor 86:251–257Google Scholar
  28. Hixon MA, Carpenter FL (1988) Distinguishing energy maximizers from time minimizers: a comparative study of two hummingbird species. Am Zool 28:913–925Google Scholar
  29. Hixon MA, Carpenter FL, Paton DC (1983) Territory area, flower density, and time budgeting in hummingbirds: an experimental and theoretical analysis. Am Nat 122:366–391Google Scholar
  30. Hogstad O (1988) Rank-related resource access in winter flocks of willow tit Parus montanus. Ornis Scand 19:169–174Google Scholar
  31. Holberton RL, Hanano R, Able KP (1990) Age-related dominance in male dark-eyed juncos: effects of plumage and prior residence. Anim Behav 40:573–579Google Scholar
  32. Hunt WG, Rogers RR, Stowe DJ (1975) Migratory and foraging behavior of peregrine falcons on the Texas coast. Can Field-Nat 89:111–123Google Scholar
  33. Johnsgard PA (1983) The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1978) Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual dimorphism on territoriality of migrant rufous hummingbirds. Ecology 59:285–296Google Scholar
  35. Koplin JR (1973) Differential habitat use by sexes of American kestrels wintering in northern California. Raptor Res 7:39–42Google Scholar
  36. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defense in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11: 185–194Google Scholar
  37. Kuban JF, Lawley J, Neill RL (1983) The partitioning of flowering century plants by black-chinned and Lucifer hummingbirds. Southwest Nat 28:143–148Google Scholar
  38. Miller RS (1967) Pattern and process in competition. Adv Ecol Res 4:1–74Google Scholar
  39. Milliken GA, Johnson DE (1984) Analysis of messy data. Vol 1: Designed experiments. Lifetime Learning Publications, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  40. Morse DH (1980) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Murton RK, Isaacson AJ, Westwood NJ (1971) The significance of gregarious feeding behaviour and adrenal stress in a population of wood-pigeons Columba palumbus. J Zool 165: 53–84Google Scholar
  42. Ornat AL, Greenberg R (1990) Sexual segregation by habitat in migratory warblers in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Auk 107:539–543Google Scholar
  43. Paton DC, Carpenter FL (1984) Peripheral foraging by territorial rufous hummingbirds: defense by exploitation. Ecology 65:1808–1819Google Scholar
  44. Peters WD, Grubb TC Jr (1983) An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the downy woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64:1437–1443Google Scholar
  45. Phillips AR (1975) The migrations of Allen's and other hummingbirds. Condor 77:196–205Google Scholar
  46. Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151Google Scholar
  47. Snow DW, Snow BK (1980) Relationships between hummingbirds and flowers in the Andes of Colombia. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist (Zool) 38:105–139Google Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Stiles FG (1972) Age and sex determination in rufous and Allen hummingbirds. Condor 74:25–32Google Scholar
  50. Temeles EJ (1986) Reversed sexual size dimorphism: effect on resource defense and foraging behaviors of nonbreeding northern harriers. Auk 103:70–78Google Scholar
  51. Weeden RB (1964) Spatial separation of sexes in rock and willow ptarmigan in winter. Auk 81:534–541Google Scholar
  52. Wunderle JM Jr (1991) Age-specific foraging proficiency in birds. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology, vol 8. Plenum Press, New York, pp 273–324Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Lynn Carpenter
    • 1
  • Mark A. Hixon
    • 2
  • Robert W. Russell
    • 1
  • David C. Paton
    • 3
  • Ethan J. Temeles
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.National Zoological ParkSmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations