the birds learned the positions of the rewards in the array, irrespective of distance. Following the shift, all birds were worse at visiting the previously rewarded flowers, but this effect was much greater following the shift of 160 cm. Flower color pattern had no effect on post-shift performance. It appears, then, that the birds use different types of spatial information depending on the spatial scale - when the flowers are close together (<40 cm), the birds use within-array cues to relocate rewarded flowers, and when farther apart they use cues which are outside the array. When foraging on real flowers, then, it may be that birds are remembering locations of single flowers or flower clumps but that within a clump or an inflorescence the birds are more likely to remember which flowers to avoid by remembering the positions of flowers relative to each other. It is not yet clear how the performance observed in these experimental manipulations is related to that which would be demonstrated in real foraging. For example, we do not know whether there is any ecological validity to the spatial scale we used in this experiment. Different populations or species ofhummingbirds might use spatial cues differently, but to understand such differences, one would need to know on what plants the birds forage (and how they and their flowers are spatially and temporally distributed). If, as is likely, all species forage on both single and clumped flowers, they may then all show a similar switch in scale of spatial cue use.


Recent evidence supports the notion that hummingbirds, at least territorial hummingbirds, use memory for avoiding flowers on which they have recently fed. They use location cues to do this, seemingly paying little attention to the color/pattern cues of the flowers themselves. And yet, the role for flower color in the relationship between plants and their hummingbird pollinators seems to be a major one, made more explicable when an understanding of the birds' perceptual and memory capabilities is taken into account. To persuade a hummingbird to make a first visit to a flower, visual conspicuousness seems to outweigh spatial proximity. With little evidence that birds use movement rules between making flower choices, the spatial distribution pattern of flowers also seems of little consequence.

On the other hand, for plant pollination, the role of a hummingbird's spatial memory - either in accuracy, capacity, or duration - is much less clear in spite of its psychological dominance. Rufous hummingbirds, certainly, can remember after a single, very short visit the locations of small numbers (at least) of flowers, and they avoid these for short periods of time. On the other hand, locations of food sources that do not deplete require multiple visits before the birds reliably return to them. They can also discriminate between flowers that are close together (a few cm) using either other nearby flowers or more distant, larger landmarks as cues. The capacity and duration of hummingbirds' spatial memory have received little attention, not least because assessing these capabilities is logistically difficult. Whether or not plants have managed to respond to or manipulate these cognitive capacities is unclear.

In order to understand just how well plants have managed both to exploit and to be manipulated themselves by the perceptual and cognitive abilities of their hummingbird pollinators will require an interdisciplinary, integrative approach. Avenues for investigation include: field tests of learning and memory in hummingbirds using real plants, growing naturally, to assess the accuracy, capacity, and duration of spatial memory; collection of comparative data (there are almost no data of this kind to date) to determine whether hummingbird species show differences in cognitive abilities that correlate with differences amongst plants in visual, spatial, and reward features; and collection of quantitative data on the numbers of flowers, nectar refilling rates, and variation in quantity and concentration of nectar within and between plants.


Armstrong DP, Gass CL & Sutherland GD (1987) Should foragers remember where they've been? Explorations of a simulation model based on the behavior and energetics of territorial hummingbirds. In: Kamil AC, Krebs JR & Pulliam HR (eds) Foraging behavior, pp 563-586. Plenum Press, New York Bene, F (1941) Experiments on the color preference of the black-chinned hummingbird. Condor 43:237-242

Bene, F (1945) The role of learning in the feeding behavior of black-chinned hummingbirds. Condor 47:3-21 Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC & Norris KJ (1994) Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. Am Nat 144:848-860 Brodbeck DR (1994) Memory for spatial and local cues: a comparison of a storing and a nonstoring species. Anim Learn Behav 22:119-133 Brown GS (1994) Spatial association learning by rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus): effects of relative spacing among stimuli. J Comp Psychol 108:29-35 Brown GS & Gass CL (1993) Spatial association learning by hummingbirds. Anim Behav


Chittka L & Waser NM (1997) Why red flowers are not invisible to bees. Israel] Plant Sci 45:169-183

Chittka L, Kunze J & Geiger K (1995) The influences of landmarks on distance estimation of honeybees. Anim Behav 50:23-31 Clayton NS & Krebs JR (1994) Memory for spatial and object-specific cues in food-

storing and nonstoring birds. ] Comp Physiol A 174:371-379 Cole S, Hainsworth FR, Kamil AC, Mercier T & Wolf LL (1982) Spatial learning as an adaptation in hummingbirds. Science 217:655-657 Collias NE & Collias EC (1968) Anna's hummingbirds trained to select different colors in feeding. Condor 70:273-274 Corbet SA, Cuthill I, Fallows M, Harrison T & Hartley G (1981) Why do nectar-foraging bees and wasps work upward on inflorescences? Oecologia 51:79-83 Faegri K & van der Pijl L (1971) The principles ofpollination ecology. Pergamon Press, New York

Feinsinger P (1978) Ecological interactions between plants and hummingbirds in a successional tropical community. Ecol Monogr 48:269-287 Feinsinger P & Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among neotropical nectar-

feeding birds. Am Zool 18:779-795 Garrison JSE & Gass CL (1999) Response of a traplining hummingbird to changes in nectar availability. Behav Ecol 10:714-725 Gass CE & Sutherland GD (1985) Specialization by territorial hummingbirds on experimentally enriched patches of flowers: energetic profitability and learning. Can] Zool 63:2125-2133 George MW (1980) Hummingbird foraging behavior at Malvaviscus arboreus var.

Drummondii. Auk 97:790-794 Gill FB (1988) Trapline foraging by hermit hummingbirds: competition for an undefended renewable resource. Ecology 69:1933-1942 Goldsmith TH & Goldsmith KM (1979) Discrimination of colors by the black-chinned hummingbird, Archilochus alexandri.] Comp Physiol 130:209-220 Graenicher S (1910) On humming-bird flowers. Bull Wisc Nat Hist Soc 8:183-186 Grant KA (1966) A hypothesis concerning the prevalence of red coloration in California hummingbird flowers. Am Nat 100:85-97 Grant V & Temeles EJ (1992) Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA


Hainsworth FR, Mercier T & Wolf LL (1983) Floral arrangements and hummingbird feeding. Oecologia 58:225-229 Healy SD & Hurly TA (1995) Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus):

a field test. Anim Learn Behav 23:63-68 Healy SD & Hurly TA (1998) Hummingbirds' memory for flowers: patterns or actual spatial locations?]Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Proc 24:1-9 Heinrich B (1983) Do bumblebees forage optimally, and does it matter? Am Zool 23:273-281

Hurly TA (1996) Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds: memory for rewarded and non-rewarded sites. Anim Behav 51:177-183 Hurly TA & Healy SD (1996) Location or local visual cues? Memory for flowers in rufous hummingbirds. Anim Behav 51:1149-1157

Kleerekoper H, Timms AM, Westlake GF, Davy FB, Malar J & Anderson VM (1970) An analysis of locomotor behaviour of goldfish (Carassius auratus). Anim Behav 18:317-330

Kodric-Brown A & Brown JH (1978) Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual dimorphism on territoriality of migrant rufous hummingbirds. Ecology 59:285-296

Lyerly SB, Riess BF & Ross S (1950) Color preference in the Mexican violet-eared hummingbird, Calibri t. thalassinus (Swainson). Behaviour 2:237-248 Melendez-Ackerman E & Campbell DR (1998) Adaptive significance of flower color and inter-trait correlations in an Ipomopsis hybrid zone. Evolution 52:1293-1303 Melendez-Ackerman E, Campbell DR & Waser NM (1997) Hummingbird behavior and mechanisms of selection on flower color in Ipomopsis. Ecology 78:2532-2541 Miller RS & Miller RE (1971) Feeding activity and color preference of ruby-throated hummingbirds. Condor 73:309-313 Miller RS, Tamm S, Sutherland GD & Gass CL (1985) Cues for orientation in hummingbird foraging: color and position. Can] Zool 63:18-21 Paton DC & Carpenter FL (1984) Peripheral foraging by territorial rufous hummingbirds: defense by exploitation. Ecology 65:1808-1819 Pyke GH (1978a) Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants. Oecologia 36:281-292

Pyke GH (1978b) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: testing the marginal value theorem. Am Zool 18:739-752 Pyke GH (1981) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: rule of movement between inflorescences. Anim Behav 29:889-896 Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Ann RevEcol Syst 15:523-575 Smith JNM (1974) The food searching behaviour of two European thrushes. I.

Description and analysis of search paths. Behaviour 48:276-302 Stiles FG (1976) Taste preferences, color preferences and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78:10-26 Sutherland GD & Gass CL (1995) Learning and remembering of spatial patterns by hummingbirds. Anim Behav 50:1273-1286 Thomson JD, Slatkin M & Thomson BA (1997) Trapline foraging by bumble bees. II.

Definition and detection from sequence data. Behav Ecol 8:199-210 Thomson JD, Wilson P, Valenzuela M & Malzone M (2001) Pollen presentation and pollination syndromes, with special reference to Penstemon. Plant Sp Biol, 15:11-29 Waddington KD & Heinrich B (1979) The foraging movements of bumblebees on vertical "inflorescences": an experimental analysis.] Comp Physiol 134:113-117 Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams N & Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043-1060 Weiss MR (1997) Innate color preferences and flexible color learning in the pipevine swallowtail. Anim Behav 53:1043-1052 Wolf LL & Hainsworth FR (1990) Non-random foraging by hummingbirds: patterns of movement between Ipomopsis aggregata (Pursch). V. Grant inflorescences. Funct Ecol 4:149-157

Wolf LL & Hainsworth FR (1991) Hummingbird foraging patterns: visits to clumps of Ipomopsis aggregata inflorescences. Anim Behav 41:803-812

Bats as pollinators: foraging energetics and floral

Bat pollination is a pan-tropical phenomenon, performed in the Old World by small megachiropterans (Pteropodidae) and in the New World by microchiropterans of the leaf-nosed bat family Phyllostomidae (Dobat 1985). Flower-visiting bat species total about 50 worldwide, while Dobat (1985) listed about 750 bat-pollinated plant species in 270 genera (590 for the Neo- and 160 for the Palaeotropics). Since then, many more cases have been found.

Although plants independently enlisted "megabats" and "microbats" as pollinators, it is likely that both systems have links to one common root: pollination by ancient, nocturnal, non-flying mammals dating to the late Cretaceous (Sussman & Raven 1978). The extinction of most of these early mammalian flower visitors coincided with the radiation of bats from the Eocene onward in the Old World, and during the Miocene in South America (Sussman & Raven 1978). Genera like Parkia may have developed mammal pollination before the separation of African and South American plates; they still retain this trait (Vogel 1969, 1980). Of the plant species found to attract bats today, however, the vast majority evolved their adaptative traits more recently (Vogel 1990).

In the Neotropics, it is useful to consider a continuum ranging from less specialized "fruit-bat" flowers to true "glossophagine" flowers (von Helversen 1993; cf. Johnson & Steiner 2000). For Costa Rica, we estimate that two-thirds of the bat-pollinated plant species are glossophagine specialists. Among the leaf-nosed bats, the subfamily Glossophaginae, with about 35 species and body masses ranging from 6 to 35 g, has evolved the highest degree of specialization for feeding from flowers. This includes the ability to feed during hovering flight, using a protrusile, brush-

tipped tongue nearly as long as the body (von Helversen & von Helversen 1975). This group of bats probably accounts for the greater expansion of chiropterophily in the Neotropics than in the Old World (see above). In the Neotropics about 0.7% to 1% of the angiosperm flora is bat-pollinated, including rather delicate or herbaceous plants that can only be exploited by highly maneuverable, hover-feeding visitors.

Bats are "expensive" pollinators in that they need large amounts of nectar (even glossophagine flowers produce at least 100 ^l of nectar per night, and flowers visited by large bats produce at least a few milliliters). These requirements should severely restrict the circumstances under which bats become the preferred pollinator for a plant species. On the other hand, bats offer pollen transfer over potentially large distances, which can be important for self-incompatible plants that grow sparsely. A bat may fly 60 km (von Helversen & Reyer 1984) to 100 km (Horner et al. 1998) in a single night's foraging and commuting, and may fly from several hundred meters up to several kilometers between successive plants.

This chapter concerns the energetic aspects of the consumer-resource relationship; we consider these to have played a pivotal role in the evolutionary interaction between glossophagines and their flowers (cf. Heinrich & Raven 1972). We first present a quantitative model of the foraging energetics by a glossophagine bat. This model calculates the minimal caloric reward required by a bat, from average flower visits, in order to balance its energy budget. One result is that selection for increased search efficiency is likely to be intense under conditions of food limitation. Second, we discuss how plant traits that enhance flower detectability may increase the energetic efficiency of pollinator foraging. Pollinators may compete for flower nectar, but flowers may also compete for pollinators, and pollinators will typically prefer the most profitable nectar sources. Profitability involves more than nectar sugar, however; if adaptations enhance a flower's detectability, a pollinator may be able to save energy in several aspects of foraging, including search, approach after detection (i.e., "pursuit" in standard foraging models), and locating and extracting nectar ("handling"; Chittka et al., this volume; Gegear & Laverty, this volume; Menzel, this volume). Our energy-balance model of bat foraging demonstrates how increased detectability and any other facilitation of nectar exploitation can be converted into calories of saved foraging cost by the pollinator. Detectability can thus, in principle, affect profitability, and be expressed in the same "currency" as nectar sugar, even if we do not yet know the "conversion factor" quantitatively. All else being equal, plant species with higher profitabilities will be more likely to be chosen for visitation. Within species populations, more detectable individuals will be more likely to receive visits. Therefore, we expect that natural selection will tend to increase detectability, especially if adaptations for detectability are cheap compared to nectar secretion. Because detectability and nectar sugar are linked through their effects on profitability, plants that are highly detectable may be able to attract visits even if they skimp on nectar. We expect natural selection to arrive at a balance based on the functional forms of costs, benefits, and tradeoffs involving detection versus reward.

Glossophagine bat energetics

Here we derive a quantitative estimate of the threshold requirements for nectar energy during a single flower visit by a small glossophagine bat. A pollinator can only survive in a habitat in which the available food resources allow it to balance its daily energy budget. Especially for a small homeotherm vertebrate with limited capabilities to store fat, this is a stringent requirement. This raises the question: how much energy does an individual bat need to have available in its habitat.? As the energy of an average food portion must exceed the cost of acquiring it, the spatial distribution of nectar must allow for economic harvesting. The minimum energy reward that a bat needs to obtain from the average flower visit will therefore depend on the spatial distribution of flowers within the habitat. To predict resource availability for glossophagine bats, the energetic expenditures must be known.

Daily energy requirements

We determined daily energy expenditures (DEE) of glossophagine bats both from field and laboratory measurements by using methods that included doubly-labeled water, feeding trials, and energy budget estimates derived from time budgets obtained by radio telemetry of freeranging bats (von Helversen & Reyer 1984; Winter 1998a; unpublished data). Larger glossophagine species have higher DEEs than smaller species (Fig. 8.1, Table 8.1), and the slope of this log-linear relationship coincides with values derived for other vertebrate endotherms (Nagy

Sphingid Flower

A Sphingidae □ Trochilidae • Glossophaginae

Fig. 8.1 (a) Daily energy expenditure (DEE) of nectar-feeding glossophagine bats (Phyllostomidae) as a function of body mass (data based on over 450 24-h measurements in 58 individuals from 11 species). Least-squares regression of DEE on body mass M yields DEE [kJ d"i] = 1555 M [kg] °-755 (y. Winter & O. von Helversen, unpublished data). Dashed lines are regressions of DEE based on doubly-labeled water estimates for birds (Nagy 1987) and eutherian mammals (Nagy 1994). (b) The energy cost of hovering flight as a function of body mass in sphingid moths, hummingbirds (Trochilidae), and glossophagine bats (Phyllostomidae). Solid lines are regressions relating hovering power input Ph to body mass M (see Table 8.1). At a power input of 1.1 W, the three groups of flower specialists overlap in energy expenditure for hovering but support very different body weights (from Voigt & Winter 1999). Axes are plotted on a logarithmic scale.

Fig. 8.1 (a) Daily energy expenditure (DEE) of nectar-feeding glossophagine bats (Phyllostomidae) as a function of body mass (data based on over 450 24-h measurements in 58 individuals from 11 species). Least-squares regression of DEE on body mass M yields DEE [kJ d"i] = 1555 M [kg] °-755 (y. Winter & O. von Helversen, unpublished data). Dashed lines are regressions of DEE based on doubly-labeled water estimates for birds (Nagy 1987) and eutherian mammals (Nagy 1994). (b) The energy cost of hovering flight as a function of body mass in sphingid moths, hummingbirds (Trochilidae), and glossophagine bats (Phyllostomidae). Solid lines are regressions relating hovering power input Ph to body mass M (see Table 8.1). At a power input of 1.1 W, the three groups of flower specialists overlap in energy expenditure for hovering but support very different body weights (from Voigt & Winter 1999). Axes are plotted on a logarithmic scale.

Table 8.1. Energy relations and foraging parameters inglossophagine bats and their mass dependence





Basal metabolic rateb


1.15 (2.59 M°-71)

McNab 1988; Arends et al. 1995

Daily energy expenditure

kJ d-1

1555 M0-76

Y. Winter & O. von Helversen

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment