Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 305–312 | Cite as

Exploitative compensation by subordinate age-sex classes of migrant rufous hummingbirds

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


The three age-sex classes of rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) that directly interact on southward migratory stopovers in our California study system differ in territorial ability and resource use. Immature males are behaviorally dominant to adult and immature females and defend the richest territories. Here, we test the hypothesis that the territorially subordinate age-sex classes compensate exploitatively for their exclusion from rich resources. Our results show that females were able to accumulate energy stores at rates comparable to males despite their subordinate territorial status. Territorial females gained body mass at the same rate and in the same pattern as males, and resumed migration at the same body masses. Moreover, during periods when birds were nonterritorial and used dispersed resources, adult and immature females maintained or gained body mass, whereas immature males lost mass. We suggest that females may be energetically compensated by (1) lower costs of flight incurred during foraging and defense, resulting from their lower wing disc loading, and (2) greater success at robbing nectar from rich male territories, resulting from duller coloration (immature females), experience (adult females), and, possibly, hormonal differences. In the future, experiments will be necessary to distinguish the various hypotheses about the mechanisms involved in compensation.

Key words

Intraspecific dominance Foraging ecology Migration Stopovers Hummingbirds 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alatalo RV, Moreno J (1987) Body size, interspecific interactions, and use of foraging sites in tits (Paridae). Ecology 68:1773–1777Google Scholar
  2. Alford JR III, Bolen EG (1977) Influence of winter temperatures on pintail sex ratios in Texas. Southwest Nat 21:554–556Google Scholar
  3. Bennett JW, Bolen EG (1978) Stress response in wintering green-winged teal. J Wildl Manage 42:81–86Google Scholar
  4. Bleiweiss R (1985) Iridescent polychromatism in a female hummingbird: is it related to feeding strategies? Auk 102:701–713Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Calder WA III (1987) Southbound through Colorado: migration of rufous hummingbirds. Natl Geogr Res 3:40–51Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Carpenter FL (1987) Food abundance and territoriality: to defend or not to defend? Am Zool 27:387–399Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter FL (1988) Pollen transfer efficiency compensates for pollinator crashes in a specialized bird-pollinated plant. Acta Congr Int Ornithol XIX: 537–548Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Russell RW, Paton DC, Temeles EJ (1993b) Interference asymmetries among age-sex classes of rufous hummingbirds during migratory stopovers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:297–304Google Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria), the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147Google Scholar
  16. Des Granges JL (1978) Organization of a tropical nectar feeding bird guild in a variable environment. Living Bird 17:199–236Google Scholar
  17. Desrochers A (1989) Sex, dominance, and microhabitat use in wintering black-capped chickadees: a field experiment. Ecology 70:636–645Google Scholar
  18. Diamond JM, Karasov WH, Phan D, Carpenter FL (1986) Digestive physiology is a determinant of foraging bout frequency in hummingbirds. Nature 320:62–63Google Scholar
  19. Draulans D, van Vessem J (1985) Age-related differences in the use of time and space by radio-tagged grey herons (Ardea cinerea) in winter. J Anim Ecol 54:771–780Google Scholar
  20. Epting RJ (1980) Functional dependence of the power for hovering on wing disc loading in hummingbirds. Physiol Zool 53:347–357Google Scholar
  21. Epting RJ, Casey TM (1973) Power output and wing disc loading in hovering hummingbirds. Am Nat 107:761–765Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99:573–576Google Scholar
  24. Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monogr 46:257–291Google Scholar
  25. Feinsinger P, Chaplin SB (1975) On the relationship between wing disc loading and foraging strategy in hummingbirds. Am Nat 109:217–224Google Scholar
  26. Feinsinger P, Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among neotropical nectar-feeding birds. Am Zool 18:779–795Google Scholar
  27. Feinsinger 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
  28. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Gass CL (1979) Territory regulation, tenure, and migration in rufous hummingbirds. Can J Zool 57:914–923Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Glase JC (1973) Ecology of social organization in the black-capped chickadee. Living Bird 12:235–267Google Scholar
  32. Goss-Custard JD, Durell SEA (1987) Age-related effects in oystercatchers, Haematopus ostralegus, feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis. I. Foraging efficiency and interference. J Anim Ecol 56:521–536Google Scholar
  33. Grant KA, Grant V (1967) Effects of hummingbird migration on plant speciation in the California flora. Evolution 21:457–465Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of the hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A: 65–78Google Scholar
  36. Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 4:136–138Google Scholar
  37. Hilborn R, Stearns SC (1982) On inference in ecology and evolutionary biology: the problem of multiple causes. Acta Biotheor 31:145–164Google Scholar
  38. Hixon MA, Carpenter FL (1988) Distinguishing energy maximizers from time minimizers: a comparative study of two humming-bird species. Am Zool 28:913–925Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Johnsgard PA (1983) The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Karasov WH, Phan D, Diamond JM, Carpenter FL (1986) Food passage and intestinal nutrient absorption in hummingbirds. Auk 103:453–464Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11: 185–194Google Scholar
  44. Lynch JF, Morton ES, Van der Voort ME (1985) Habitat segregation between the sexes of wintering hooded warblers (Wilsonia citrina). Auk 102:714–721Google Scholar
  45. MacMillen RE (1981) Nonconformance of standard metabolic rate with body mass in Hawaiian honeycreepers. Oecologia 49:340–343Google Scholar
  46. Miller RS (1967) Pattern and process in competition. Adv Ecol Res 4:1–74Google Scholar
  47. Milliken GA, Johnson DE (1984) Analysis of messy data. Vol 1: Designed experiments. Lifetime Learning Publications, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  48. Montgomerie RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63:229–236Google Scholar
  49. Morse DH (1980) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  50. Pennycuick CJ (1975) Mechanics of flight. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian biology, vol 5. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–75Google Scholar
  51. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266Google Scholar
  52. Peters WD, Grubb TC Jr (1983) An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the downy woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64:1437–1443Google Scholar
  53. Phillips AR (1975) The migrations of Allen's and other humming-birds. Condor 77:196–205Google Scholar
  54. Rohwer S, Ewald PW (1981) The cost of dominance and advantage of subordination in a badge signaling system. Evolution 35:442–454Google Scholar
  55. Roskaft E, Jarvi T, Bakken M, Bech C, Reinertsen RE (1986) The relationship between social status and resting metabolic rate in great tits (Parus major) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca). Anim Behav 34:838–842Google Scholar
  56. Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151Google Scholar
  57. Selander RK (1972) Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 180–230Google Scholar
  58. Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 64:419–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Stiles FG (1972) Age and sex determination in rufous and Allen hummingbirds. Condor 74:25–32Google Scholar
  61. Temeles EJ (1986) Reversed sexual size dimorphism: effect on resource defense and foraging behaviors of nonbreeding northern harriers. Auk 103:70–78Google Scholar
  62. Temeles EJ, Roberts WM (1993) Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: an experimental analysis of hummingbirds. Oecologia 94:87–94Google Scholar
  63. West Eberhard MJ (1975) The evolution of social behavior by kin selection. Q Rev Biol 50:1–33Google Scholar
  64. Wolf LL, Hainsworth FR, Stiles FG (1972) Energetics of foraging: rate and efficiency of nectar extraction by hummingbirds. Science 176:1351–1352Google Scholar
  65. Wunderle JM Jr (1991) Age-specific foraging proficiency in birds. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology, vol 8. Plenum, New York, pp 273–324Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations