Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp 482–492 | Cite as

Effect of floral orifice width and shape on hummingbird-flower interactions

  • C. E. Smith
  • J. T. Stevens
  • E. J. TemelesEmail author
  • P. W. Ewald
  • R. J. Hebert
  • R. L. Bonkovsky
Article

Abstract

Nectar guides are common among insect-pollinated plants, yet are thought to be rare or absent among hummingbird-pollinated plants. We hypothesize that the lower lips and trumpet-shaped orifices of many hummingbird flowers act as nectar guides to direct hummingbirds to the flowers' nectar and orient the birds for pollination. To test this hypothesis we conducted laboratory experiments using flowers of Monarda didyma (bee balm) and M. fistulosa (wild bergamot), which have orifice widths of about 4 mm and 2 mm, respectively, and latex flowers with orifice widths of 4 mm and 2 mm and three orifice shapes (trumpet, lipped, and lipless). Rubythroated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) made fewer errors during bill insertion and spent a smaller proportion of their feeding visit in error at M. didyma flowers than at M. fistulosa flowers, and at unaltered flowers of both species than at flowers with lower lips removed. Handling times were longer at both lipped and lipless flowers of M. didyma than at those of M. fistulosa, and at lipped than at lipless flowers of M. didyma. The average duration of contact between a hummingbird and a flower's anthers and stigma was longer at M. didyma than at M. fistulosa for both lipped and lipless flowers, and at lipped than at lipless M. didyma flowers. Hummingbirds missed the openings of latex flowers with their bills more frequently and spent a greater percentage of their total feeding visit in error at (i) 2-mm than at 4-mm flowers of all three shapes, (ii) lipless flowers than at trumpet or lipped flowers, and (iii) lipped flowers than at trumpet flowers of both widths. The duration of hummingbird/anther contact was longer at (i) 2-mm than at 4-mm flowers of all shapes, (ii) lipped than at trumpet or lipless flowers, and (iii) lipless than at trumpet flowers for both widths. No significant differences in handling times of hummingbirds were observed among any of the latex flower shapes or widths. Our results demonstrate that orifice shapes can act as guides by reducing the frequency of feeding errors by visiting hummingbirds, and that effects of orifice shape on pollination must be considered in conjunction with flower widths and locations of anthers and stigmas.

Key words

Pollination Archilochus colubris Monarda Feeding Nectar guides 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin DF (1975) Bird flowers in the eastern United States. Fla Sci 38:1–12Google Scholar
  2. Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc Lond B 224: 223–365Google Scholar
  3. Bertin RI (1989) Pollination biology. In: Abrahamson WG (ed) Plant-animal interactions. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 23–86Google Scholar
  4. Campbell DR (1989) Measurements of selection in a hermaphroditic plant: variation in male and female pollination success. Evolution 43:318–334Google 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. Darwin C (1962) On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Faegri K, Pijl L van der (1979) The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (1983) Coevolution. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert LE, Raven PH (1975) Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. Grant KA, Grant V (1968) Hummingbirds and their flowers. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant V (1994) Modes and origins of mechanical and ethological isolation in angiosperms. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91: 3–10Google Scholar
  12. Grant V, Temeles EJ (1992) Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89: 9400–9404Google Scholar
  13. Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A: 65–78Google Scholar
  14. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia 25: 101–113Google Scholar
  15. Herrera CM (1993) Selection on floral morphology and environmental determinants of fecundity in a hawk moth-pollinated violet. Ecol Monogr 63: 251–275Google Scholar
  16. Hurlbert AH, Hosoi SA, Temeles EJ, Ewald PW (1996) Mobility of Impatiens capensis flowers: effect on pollen deposition and hummingbird foraging. Oecologia 105: 243–246Google Scholar
  17. Hylander CJ (1954) The Macmillan wild flower book. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnsgard PA (1983) The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston MO (1991) Pollen limitation of female reproduction in Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Ecology 72: 1500–1503Google Scholar
  20. Montgomerie RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characteristics. Oecologia 63: 229–236Google Scholar
  21. Nilsson LA (1988) The evolution of flowers with deep corolla tubes. Nature 334: 147–149Google Scholar
  22. O'Brien RG, Kaiser MG (1985) MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer. Psychol Bull 97: 316–333Google Scholar
  23. Peterson RT, McKenney M (1968) A field guide to wildflowers of northeastern/northcentral North America. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. Pojar J (1975) Hummingbird flowers of British Columbia. Syesis 8: 25–27Google Scholar
  25. Proctor MP, Yeo P (1972) The pollination of flowers. Taplinger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225Google Scholar
  27. Rickett HW (1966) Wild flowers of the United States, vol. 1, part 2. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. SAS Institute (1988) SAS/STAT User's Guide, release 6.03 edn. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  29. Scora RW (1967) Interspecific relationships in the genus Monarda. Univ Calif Publ Bot 41: 1–59Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Stebbins GL (1989) Adaptive shifts towards hummingbird pollination. In: Bock JH, Linhart YB (eds) The evolutionary ecology of plants. Westview, Boulder, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  32. Stiles FG (1978) Ecological and evolutionary implications of bird pollination. Am Zool 18: 715–727Google Scholar
  33. Temeles EJ (in press) A new dimension to hummingbird-flower relationships. OecologiaGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Waser NM, Price MV (1985) The effect of nectar guides on pollinator preference: experimental studies with a montane herb. Oecologia 67: 121–126Google Scholar
  36. Whitten MW (1981) Pollination ecology of Monarda didyma, M. clinopodia and hybrids (Lamiaciae) in the southern Appalachian mountains. Am J Bot 68: 435–442Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. E. Smith
    • 1
  • J. T. Stevens
    • 1
  • E. J. Temeles
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. W. Ewald
    • 1
  • R. J. Hebert
    • 1
  • R. L. Bonkovsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyAmherst CollegeAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations