, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 87–94 | Cite as

Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: an experimental analysis of hummingbirds

  • Ethan J. Temeles
  • W. Mark Roberts
Original Papers


We examined whether sexual differences in trophic morphology are associated with sexual differences in foraging behavior through two laboratory experiments on rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) designed to compare probing abilities (maximum extraction depths) and handling times of sexes at flowers. Bills of female S. rufus are about 10.5% longer than bills of males, and this difference was associated with sexual differences in foraging abilities. Maximum extraction depths of female S. rufus were significantly greater than those of males, and no overlap between the sexes was observed. Moreover, handling times of females were shorter than handling times of males at flowers having longer corollas (≥15 mm). Thus, because of their longer bills, female S. rufus have the potential to feed from longer flowers than males, and can do so more quickly. We suggest that no single mechanism is responsible for the evolution of sexual dimorphism in bill lengths of hummingbirds, but rather that the dimorphism probably reflects the combined effects of reproductive role division and intersexual food competition, and possibly, sexual selection.

Key words

Sexual dimorphism Foraging behavior Plant-pollinator interactions Hummingbirds Trochilidae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baltosser WH (1987) Age, species, and sex determination of four North American hummingbirds. N Am Bird Bander 12: 151–166Google Scholar
  2. Bertin RI (1982) Floral biology, hummingbird pollination and fruit production of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans, Bignoniaceae). Am J Bot 69: 122–134Google Scholar
  3. Boake CRB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3: 173–182Google Scholar
  4. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1979) Convergence, competition, and mimicry in a temperate community of hummingbird-pollinated flowers. Ecology 60: 1022–1035Google Scholar
  5. Campbell DR, Waser NM, Price MV, Lynch EA, Mitchell RJ (1991) Components of phenotypic selection: pollen export and flower corolla width in Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution 45: 1458–1467Google Scholar
  6. Colwell RK (1989) Hummingbirds of the San Juan Fernandez Islands: natural history, evolution and population status. Ibis 131: 548–566Google Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99: 573–576Google Scholar
  9. Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd ed. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinsinger P, Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among nectar-feeding birds. Am Zool 18: 779–795Google Scholar
  11. Gass CL (1985) Behavioral foundations of adaptation. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol. 6. Plenum Press, New York, pp 63–107Google Scholar
  12. Gosler AG (1987) Pattern and process in bill morphology of the Great Tit Parus major. Ibis 129: 451–476Google Scholar
  13. Grant KA, Grant V (1968) Hummingbirds and their flowers. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant V, Grant KA (1966) Records of hummingbird pollination in the western American flora. Aliso 6: 51–66Google Scholar
  15. Grant V, Temeles EJ (1992) Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89: 9400–9404Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia 25: 101–113Google Scholar
  18. Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 4: 136–138Google Scholar
  19. Huey RB, Dunham AE (1987) Repeatability of locomotor performance in natural populations of the lizard Sceloporus merriami. Evolution 41: 1116–1120Google Scholar
  20. Johnsgard PA (1983) The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Lessels CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116–121Google Scholar
  23. Lewin R (1985) Why are male hawks so small? Science 228: 1299–1300Google Scholar
  24. Martindale S (1982) Nest defense and central place foraging: a model and experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10: 85–89Google Scholar
  25. Montgomeric RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63: 229–236Google Scholar
  26. Morse DH (1980) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  27. Morton ES (1990) Habitat segregation by sex in the hooded warbler: experiments on proximate causation and discussion of its evolution. Am Nat 135: 319–333Google Scholar
  28. Munz PA (1974) A flora of southern California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  29. O'Brien RG, Kaiser MG (1985) MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer. Psychol Bull 97: 316–333Google Scholar
  30. Paton DC, Collins BG (1989) Bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds: a review of morphology, function and performance, with intercontinental comparisons. Austr J Ecol 14: 473–506Google Scholar
  31. Peters WD, Grubb TC, Jr (1983) An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64: 1437–1443Google Scholar
  32. Roberts WM (1992) Hummingbirds' concentration preferences and the energetics of nectar-feeding: predictions, tests, and implications for optimal foraging theory and pollination biology. M. Sci. thesis, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig ML, Sterner PW (1970) Population ecology of desert rodents: body size and seed-husking as bases for heteromyid coexistence. Ecology 51: 217–224Google Scholar
  34. Ryan BF, Joiner BL, Ryan TA, Jr (1985) Minitab handbook, 2nd ed. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. SAS Institute Inc. (1988) SAS/STAT User's guide, release 6.03 edition. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  36. Selander RK (1972) Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Aldine Publ Co, Chicago, pp 180–230Google Scholar
  37. Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 64: 419–461Google Scholar
  38. Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622–630Google Scholar
  39. Snow DW, Snow BK (1980) Relationships between hummingbirds and flowers in the Andes of Columbia. Bull Brit Mus Nat Hist (Zool) 38: 105–139Google Scholar
  40. Tamm S (1987) Tracking varying environments: sampling by hummingbirds. Anim Behav 35: 1725–1734Google Scholar
  41. Temeles EJ (1985) Sexual size dimorphism of bird-eating hawks: the effect of prey vulnerability. Am Nat 125: 485–499Google Scholar
  42. Vaudry R, Raymond M, Robitaille J-F (1990) The capture of voles and shrews by male and female ermine Mustela erminea in captivity. Holarct Ecol 13: 265–268Google Scholar
  43. Vickery RK (1990) Pollination experiments in the Mimulus cardinalis — M. lewisii complex. Great Basin Nat 50: 155–159Google Scholar
  44. Weisberg S (1980) Applied linear regression. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ethan J. Temeles
    • 1
  • W. Mark Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations