Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baltosser WH (1987) Age, species, and sex determination of four North American hummingbirds. N Am Bird Bander 12: 151–166
Bertin RI (1982) Floral biology, hummingbird pollination and fruit production of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans, Bignoniaceae). Am J Bot 69: 122–134
Boake CRB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3: 173–182
Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1979) Convergence, competition, and mimicry in a temperate community of hummingbird-pollinated flowers. Ecology 60: 1022–1035
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: 1458–1467
Colwell RK (1989) Hummingbirds of the San Juan Fernandez Islands: natural history, evolution and population status. Ibis 131: 548–566
Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J Murray, London
Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99: 573–576
Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd ed. Longman, New York
Feinsinger P, Colwell RK (1978) Community organization among nectar-feeding birds. Am Zool 18: 779–795
Gass CL (1985) Behavioral foundations of adaptation. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol. 6. Plenum Press, New York, pp 63–107
Gosler AG (1987) Pattern and process in bill morphology of the Great Tit Parus major. Ibis 129: 451–476
Grant KA, Grant V (1968) Hummingbirds and their flowers. Columbia University Press, New York
Grant V, Grant KA (1966) Records of hummingbird pollination in the western American flora. Aliso 6: 51–66
Grant V, Temeles EJ (1992) Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89: 9400–9404
Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of the hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A: 65–78
Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia 25: 101–113
Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 4: 136–138
Huey RB, Dunham AE (1987) Repeatability of locomotor performance in natural populations of the lizard Sceloporus merriami. Evolution 41: 1116–1120
Johnsgard PA (1983) The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA
Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1978) Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual dimorphism on territoriality of migrant rufous hummingbirds. Ecology 59: 285–296
Lessels CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116–121
Lewin R (1985) Why are male hawks so small? Science 228: 1299–1300
Martindale S (1982) Nest defense and central place foraging: a model and experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10: 85–89
Montgomeric RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63: 229–236
Morse DH (1980) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass
Morton ES (1990) Habitat segregation by sex in the hooded warbler: experiments on proximate causation and discussion of its evolution. Am Nat 135: 319–333
Munz PA (1974) A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley
O'Brien RG, Kaiser MG (1985) MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer. Psychol Bull 97: 316–333
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: 473–506
Peters WD, Grubb TC, Jr (1983) An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64: 1437–1443
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, Vancouver
Rosenzweig ML, Sterner PW (1970) Population ecology of desert rodents: body size and seed-husking as bases for heteromyid coexistence. Ecology 51: 217–224
Ryan BF, Joiner BL, Ryan TA, Jr (1985) Minitab handbook, 2nd ed. Duxbury Press, Boston
SAS Institute Inc. (1988) SAS/STAT™ User's guide, release 6.03 edition. Cary, North Carolina
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 180–230
Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 64: 419–461
Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622–630
Snow DW, Snow BK (1980) Relationships between hummingbirds and flowers in the Andes of Columbia. Bull Brit Mus Nat Hist (Zool) 38: 105–139
Tamm S (1987) Tracking varying environments: sampling by hummingbirds. Anim Behav 35: 1725–1734
Temeles EJ (1985) Sexual size dimorphism of bird-eating hawks: the effect of prey vulnerability. Am Nat 125: 485–499
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: 265–268
Vickery RK (1990) Pollination experiments in the Mimulus cardinalis — M. lewisii complex. Great Basin Nat 50: 155–159
Weisberg S (1980) Applied linear regression. Wiley and Sons, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Temeles, E.J., Roberts, W.M. Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: an experimental analysis of hummingbirds. Oecologia 94, 87–94 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317307
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317307