» Articles » PMID: 28310488

Mechanical Determinants of Nectar Feeding Strategy in Hummingbirds: Energetics, Tongue Morphology, and Licking Behavior

Overview
Journal Oecologia
Date 2017 Mar 18
PMID 28310488
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To explore the mechanical determinants of feeding strategies for nectar feeders, we develop a fluid dynamical and behavioral model describing the mechanics and energetics of capillary feeding in hummingbirds. Behavioral and morphological data for Calypte and Archilochus are used to test and illustrate this model. We emphasize the important differences between capillary and suction mechanisms of fluid feeding. Model predictions of nectar intake rates and nectar volumes per lick are consistent with observed values for Calypte anna. The optimal nectar concentration maximizing rate of energy intake depends on tongue morphology and licking behavior. For hummingbirds exhibiting optimal licking behavior, the optimal nectar concentration is 35-40% sucrose for feeding on large nectar volumes. For small nectar volumes, the optimal concentration is 20-25%. The model also identifies certain tongue morphologies and licking frequencies maximizing energy intake, that are consistent with available observations on licking behavior and tongue design in nectar feeding birds. These predictions differ qualitatively from previous results for suction feeding in butterflies.The model predicts that there is a critical food canal radius above which suction feeding is superior to capillary feeding in maximizing the rate of energy intake; the tongues of most hummingbirds and sunbirds fall above this critical radius. The development of suction feeding by nectarivorous birds may be constrained by the elastic properties of their flexible tongues. Our results show that, in terms of morphology, scaling, and energetics, different mechanisms of feeding on the same food resource can lead to qualitatively different predictions about optimal design and feeding strategies.

Citing Articles

Feeding efficiency of two coexisting nectarivorous bat species (Phyllostomidae: Glossophaginae) at flowers of two key-resource plants.

Bechler J, Steiner K, Tschapka M PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0303227.

PMID: 38924018 PMC: 11207168. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303227.


Nectar feeding beyond the tongue: hummingbirds drink using phase-shifted bill opening, flexible tongue flaps and wringing at the tips.

Rico-Guevara A, Hurme K, Rubega M, Cuban D J Exp Biol. 2023; 226(Suppl_1).

PMID: 37010268 PMC: 10112966. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.245074.


Nectar Feeding by a Honey Bee's Hairy Tongue: Morphology, Dynamics, and Energy-Saving Strategies.

Wang H, Wu Z, Zhao J, Wu J Insects. 2021; 12(9).

PMID: 34564203 PMC: 8465255. DOI: 10.3390/insects12090762.


Shifting Paradigms in the Mechanics of Nectar Extraction and Hummingbird Bill Morphology.

Rico-Guevara A, Rubega M, Hurme K, Dudley R Integr Org Biol. 2021; 1(1):oby006.

PMID: 33791513 PMC: 7671138. DOI: 10.1093/iob/oby006.


Hummingbirds as net rate maximisers.

Houston A, Krakauer D Oecologia. 2017; 94(1):135-138.

PMID: 28313871 DOI: 10.1007/BF00317314.


References
1.
Heyneman A . Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars -dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia. 2017; 60(2):198-213. DOI: 10.1007/BF00379522. View

2.
Calder 3rd W . On the temperature-dependency of optimal nectar concentrations for birds. J Theor Biol. 1979; 78(2):185-96. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(79)90263-7. View

3.
Kresch E, Noordergraaf A . Cross-sectional shape of collapsible tubes. Biophys J. 1972; 12(3):274-94. PMC: 1484089. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86086-7. View

4.
Charnov E . Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976; 9(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. View

5.
Reed Haisworth F, Wolf L . Nectar Characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia. 2017; 25(2):101-113. DOI: 10.1007/BF00368847. View