El efecto de la concentración del néctar sobre las estrategias de forrajeo entre colibríes (Aves: Trochilidae) en bebederos artificiales
PDF

Archivos suplementarios

Anexo 1
Anexo 2

Palabras clave

análisis costo-beneficio
Colombia
comederos artificiales
consumo de néctar
interferencia artificial feeders
cost-benefit analysis
interference
nectar consumption

Cómo citar

Téllez-Colmenares , N. ., & Rico-Guevara, A. . (2023). El efecto de la concentración del néctar sobre las estrategias de forrajeo entre colibríes (Aves: Trochilidae) en bebederos artificiales . Ornitología Colombiana, (24), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.59517/oc.e568

Resumen

Los colibríes son nectarívoros especializados y su comportamiento de alimentación en bebederos artificiales es altamente variable. No todos los individuos eligen de la misma forma su alimento, ya que algunos presentan preferencias por el consumo de ciertos recursos. En este estudio evaluamos los patrones de forrajeo de néctar en un ensamblaje de colibríes en el Centro de Investigación Colibrí Gorriazul. Realizamos grabaciones de videos de alta velocidad en un experimento de tres réplicas, analizamos las visitas a jeringas modificadas como comederos con diferentes concentraciones del néctar; registramos cinco periodos en el día, durante cuatro días por mes y cuatro meses. Cuantificamos datos de consumo de néctar, número de tomas, número de visitas y tiempo de visita. Adicionalmente, comparamos datos con y sin competidores. Se presentó alta duración de las visitas y número de tomas bajo. En presencia de competidores, el patrón de forrajeo se alteró, aumentando el tiempo de visitas y número de tomas. El consumo y cantidad de visitas fueron menores en bebederos con concentraciones extremas altas o bajas, y aumentaron en las concentraciones intermedias, particularmente a 20% (concentración común en flores ornitófilas). Los patrones de forrajeo difirieron entre especies, las pequeñas tuvieron visitas más cortas y con menos tomas respecto a las especies de mayor tamaño. Para especies que pueden identificarse el sexo por dicromatismo sexual, se registraron más visitas de machos que de hembras en visitas sin competidores. Por otro lado, las variables de forrajeo no presentaron correlación con la hora, pero a largo plazo, el consumo de néctar varió considerablemente entre meses. Los resultados de este trabajo permiten observar a detalle, con casi 3.000 registros, las estrategias de forrajeo en ambientes intervenidos, analizando recurso de diferente calidad (variedad de concentraciones) y con la inclusión del factor de competencia. Se requieren estudios adicionales para evaluar el efecto de otros factores (individuo, anatomía floral, disposición espacial) que se conoce que condicionan el forrajeo.

https://doi.org/10.59517/oc.e568
PDF

Citas

Altshuler, D.L. & A.M. Nunn. 2001. Observational learning in hummingbirds. The Auk 118:795-799

Araújo, F.P., A.A.A. Barbosa & P.E. Oliveira. 2011. Floral resources and hummingbirds on an island of flooded forest in Central Brazil. Flora 206: 827–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2011.04.001

Araújo-Silva, L.E. & E. Bessa. 2010. Territorial behavior and dominance hierarchy of Vieillot 1817 (Aves: Trochilidae) on food resources. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 18: 89–96. http://hdl.handle.net/11449/42482

Arizmendi, M.D.C. 2001. Multiple ecological interactions: nectar robbers and hummingbirds in a highland forest in Mexico. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-066

Arizmendi, M.C., E. López-Saut, C. Monterrubio-Solís, L. Juárez, I. Flores-Moreno & C. Rodríguez-Flores. 2008. Efecto de la presencia de bebederos artificiales sobre la diversidad y abundancia de los colibríes y el éxito reproductivo de dos especies de plantas en un parque suburbano de la ciudad de México. Ornitología Neotropical 19: 491–500.

Ayerbe-Quiñones, F. 2015. Colibríes de Colombia. Serie Avifauna Colombiana. Wildlife Conservation Society. Bogotá D.C., Colombia.

Ayerbe-Quiñones, F. 2022. Guía Ilustrada de la Avifauna Colombiana. Tercera Edición. Wildlife Conservation Society. Editorial Punto Aparte. Bogotá D.C., Colombia.

Avalos, G., A. Soto & W. Alfaro. 2012. Effect of artificial feeders on pollen loads of the hummingbirds of Cerro de La Muerte, Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 60: 65–73. http://hdl.handle.net/10669/26464

Bacon, I.E., T.A. Hurly & S. Healy. 2010. Both the past and the present affect risk-sensitive decisions of foraging rufous hummingbirds. Behavioral Ecology 21: 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq031

Baker, H.G. 1975. Sugar concentrations in nectars from hummingbird flowers. Biotropica 7: 37–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2989798

Baker, H.G., I. Baker & S.A. Hodges. 1998. Sugar composition of nectars and fruits consumed by birds and bats in the tropics and subtropics. Biotropica 30: 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.1998.tb00097.x

Bateson, M. & A. Kacelnik. 1998. Risk-sensitive foraging: decision making in variable environments. Págs. 297-301 en: Dukas, R. (ed.). Cognitive Ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Baum, K.A. & W.E. Grant. 2001. Hummingbird foraging behavior in different patch types: simulation of alternatives strategies. Ecological Modelling 137: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00436-1

Begon, M., C.R. Townsend & J.L. Harper. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, Reino Unido.

Benjamini, Y. & Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B. 57: 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Beuchat, C.A., W.A. Calder III & E.J. Braun. 1990. The integration of osmoregulation and energy balance in hummingbirds. Physiological Zoology 63: 1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.63.6.30152633

Billerman, S.M., B.K. Keeney, P.G. Rodewald & T.S. Schulenberg (eds). 2022. Birds of the World Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Disponible en: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home [Consultado el 20 de marzo de 2023]

Blem, C.R., L.B. Blem & C.C. Cosgrove. 1997. Field Studies of Rufous Hummingbird Sucrose Preference: Does Source Height Affect Test Results?. Journal of Field Ornithology 68: 245–252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4514222

Blem, C.R., L.B. Blem, J. Felix & J. Van-Gelder. 2000. Rufous hummingbird sucrose preference: precision of selection varies with concentration. The Condor 102: 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/102.1.235

Brodin, A. & C.W. Clark. 2007. Energy storage and expenditure. Páginas 221-272 en: Stephens, D.W., J.S. Brown, & R.C. Ydenberg. (eds). Foraging: Behavior and Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Broom, D.M. 1976. Duration of feeding bouts and responses to salt solutions by hummingbirds at artificial feeders. The Condor 78: 135–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366944

Brown, G.S. & C.L. Gass. 1993. Spatial association learning by hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 46: 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1217

Brown, J.H., W.A. Calder III & A. Kodric-Brown. 1978. Correlates and consequences of body size in nectar-feeding birds. American Zoologist 18: 687–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/18.4.687

Calder, W.A., L.L. Calder & T.D. Fraizer. 1990. The hummingbird's restraint: a natural model for weight control. Experientia 46: 999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01940653

Camfield, A.F. 2006. Resource value affects territorial defense by Broad‐tailed and Rufous hummingbirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 77: 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2006.00031.x

Carpenter, F.L. 1987. Food abundance and territoriality: to defend or not to defend?. American Zoologist 27: 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/27.2.387

Carpenter, F.L., M.A. Hixon, A. Hunt & R.W. Russell. 1991. Why hummingbirds have such large crops. Evolutionary Ecology 5: 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214157

Chalcoff, V.R., M.A. Aizen & L. Galetto. 2008. Sugar preferences of the green-backed firecrown hummingbird (Sephanoides sephaniodes): A field experiment. The Auk 125: 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2008.125.1.60

Collias, N.E. & E.C. Collias. 1968. Anna's Hummingbirds trained to select different colors in feeding. The Condor 70: 273–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366705

Collins, B.G. 2008. Nectar intake and foraging efficiency: responses of honeyeaters and hummingbirds to variations in floral environments. The Auk 125: 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2008.07070

Colwell, R.K. 1973. Competition and coexistence in a simple tropical community. The American Naturalist 107: 737–760. https://doi.org/10.1086/282872

Cortes-Cano, J.S. 2018. Cambios en la interacción planta-colibrí con la presencia de bebederos artificiales: caso de estudio “Finca el Colibrí Gorriazul” (Fusagasugá). Tesis de grado. Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.

Dalsgaard, B., P.K. Maruyama, J. Sonne, K. Hansen, T.B. Zanata, S. Abrahamczyk & A.M. Martin González. 2021. The influence of biogeographical and evolutionary histories on morphological trait‐matching and resource specialization in mutualistic hummingbird-plant networks. Functional Ecology 35: 1120–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13784

Del Hoyo, J.,A. Elliott & J. Sargatal. 1999. Handbook of the birds of the world, Volume 5, Barn-owls to Hummingbirds. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, España.

Dudash, M.R., C. Hassler, P.M. Stevens & C.B. Fenster. 2011. Experimental floral and inflorescence trait manipulations affect pollinator preference and function in a hummingbird-pollinated plant. American Journal of Botany 98: 275–282. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000350

Feinsinger, P. & R.K. Colwell. 1978. Community organization among neotropical nectar-feeding birds. American Zoologist 18: 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/18.4.779

Feinsinger, P. & S.B. Chaplin. 1975. On the relationship between wing disc loading and foraging strategy in hummingbirds. The American Naturalist 109: 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1086/282988

Feinsinger, P., R.K. Colwell, J. Terborgh & S.B. Chaplin. 1979. Elevation and the morphology, flight energetics, and foraging ecology of tropical hummingbirds. The American Naturalist 113: 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1086/283408

Fenster, C.B., G. Cheely, M.R. Dudash & R.J. Reynolds. 2006. Nectar reward and advertisement in hummingbird-pollinated Silene virginica (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 93: 1800–1807. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.12.1800

Fenster, C.B., R.J. Reynolds, C.W. Williams, R. Makowsky & M.R. Dudash. 2015. Quantifying hummingbird preference for floral trait combinations: the role of selection on trait interactions in the evolution of pollination syndromes. Evolution 69: 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12639

Fernández-Juricic, E., J.T. Erichsen & A. Kacelnik. 2004. Visual perception and social foraging in birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution19: 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.003

Fleming, P.A., B.H. Bakken, C.N. Lotz & S.W. Nicolson. 2004. Concentration and temperature effects on sugar intake and preferences in a sunbird and a hummingbird. Functional Ecology 18: 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00818.x

Fraga, R.M., A.E. Ruffini & D. Grigera. 1997. Interacciones entre el picaflor rubí Sephanoides sephaniodes y plantas del bosque subantártico en el Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi, Argentina. El Hornero 14: 224–234. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/hornero_v014_n04_p224

Gass, C.L. & G.D. Sutherland. 1985. Specialization by territorial hummingbirds on experimentally enriched patches of flowers: energetic profitability and learning. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 2125–2133. https://doi.org/10.1139/z85-313

Gill, F.B. 1988. Trapline foraging by hermit hummingbirds: competition for an undefended, renewable resource. Ecology 69: 1933–1942. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941170

Gómez-Rosas, L., R. Ortiz-Pulido & C. Lara. 2013. Sensibilidad al riesgo durante el forrajeo en los colibríes Hylocharis leucotis y Selasphorus platycercus. Huitzil 14: 7–16. ISSN 1870-7459

González‐Gómez, P.L. & R.A. Vásquez. 2006. A Field Study of Spatial Memory in Green‐Backed Firecrown Hummingbirds (Sephanoides sephanoides). Ethology 112: 790–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01223.x

Greenberg, R. 1984. Differences in feeding neophobia in the tropical migrant wood warblers Dendroica castanea and D. pensylvanica. Journal of Comparative Psychology 98: 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.98.2.131

Gutiérrez-Zamora, A. 2008. Las interacciones ecológicas y estructura de una comunidad altoandina de colibríes y flores en la cordillera oriental de Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana. 7: 17–42. https://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/ojs/index.php/roc/article/view/175

Gutiérrez, A., S.V. Rojas-Nossa & F.G. Stiles. 2004. Dinámica anual de la interacción colibrí-flor en ecosistemas altoandinos. Ornitología Neotropical 15: 205–213.

Hainsworth, F.R. & L.L. Wolf. 1972. Energetics of nectar extraction in a small, high altitude, tropical hummingbird, Selasphorus flammula. Journal of Comparative Psychology 80: 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00696435

Heyneman, A.J. 1983. Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars-dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia 60: 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379522

Irwin, R.E. 2000. Hummingbird avoidance of néctar-robbed plants: spatial location or visual cues. Oikos 91: 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910311.x

Johnson, S.D. & S.W. Nicolson. 2008. Evolutionary associations between nectar properties and specificity in bird pollination systems. Biology Letters 4: 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0496

Jones, D. 2011. An appetite for connection: why we need to understand the effect and value of feeding wild birds. Emu-Austral Ornithology. 111: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1071/MUv111n2_ED

Justino, D.G., P.K. Maruyama & P.E. Oliveira. 2012. Floral resource availability and hummingbird territorial behaviour on a Neotropical savanna shrub. Journal of Field Ornithology 153: 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0726-x

Kingsolver, J.G. & T.L. Daniel. 1983. Mechanical determinants of néctar-feeding strategy in hummingbirds: Energetics, tongue morphology, and licking behavior. Oecologia 60: 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379523

Köhler, A., L. Verburgt & S.W. Nicolson. 2006. Short-term energy regulation of white-bellied sunbirds (Nectarinia talatala): effects of food concentration on feeding frequency and duration. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 2880–2887. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02326

Krebs, J.R. 1982. Territorial defense in the great tit (Parus major): Do residents always win?. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 11: 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300061

Kummer, J. & E. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10: 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00787-100206

Lasprilla, L.R. & M. Sazima. 2004. Interacciones planta-colibrí en tres comunidades vegetales de la parte suroriental del Parque Nacional Natural Chiribiquete, Colombia. Ornitología Neotropical 15: 183–190.

Leseigneur, C.D.C. & S.W. Nicolson. 2009. Nectar concentration preferences and sugar intake in the White-bellied sunbird, Cinnyris talatala (Nectariniidae). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 179: 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00360-009-0348-2

Lotz, C.N. & S.W. Nicolson. 1996. Sugar preferences of a nectarivorus passerine bird, the lesser double-collared Sunbird (Nectarinia chalybea). Functional Ecology 10: 360–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390284

Lyon, D.L. 1976. A montane hummingbird territorial system in Oaxaca, Mexico. The Wilson Bulletin 88: 80–299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4160743

Machado, C.G. 2009. Beija-flores (Aves: Trochilidae) e seus recursos florais em uma área de caatinga da Chapada Diamantina, Bahia, Brasil. Zoologia 26: 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702009000200008

Maglianesi, M.A., P.K. Maruyama, E.J. Temeles, M. Schleuning, T.B. Zanata, M. Sazima & B. Dalsgaard. 2022. Behavioral and morphological traits influence sex-specific floral resource use by hummingbirds. Journal of Animal Ecology 91: 2171–2180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13746

Mancina, C.A., A. Argus, H.M. Díaz & L.G. Herrera. 2017. Preferencias de azúcar en un nectarívoro generalista, Cyanerpes cyaneus (Aves: Thraupidae): evaluación del efecto de la concentración del néctar. Revista Cubana de Ciencias Biológicas 4: 101–106. ISSN: 2307-695X. https://revistas.uh.cu/rccb/article/view/1564

Martínez Del Rio, C., J.E. Schondube, T.J. Mcwhorter & L.G. Herrera. 2001. Intake responses in nectar feeding birds: digestive and metabolic causes, osmoregulatory consequences, and coevolutionary effects. American Zoologist 41: 902–915. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/41.4.902

Marzluff, J.M., R. Bowman & R. Donnelly. (eds). 2001. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, USA

Mast, D., N. Nelson, S. Mc. Cluhg, M. Lyke, T.K. Jovana & P. Lundberg. 2003. Hummingbirds time-variant feeding and the effect of floral coloration. https://woodrow.org/teach-ers/esi/1991/costarica/projects/group2/hum-ingbirds

McCaffrey, R.E. & S.M. Wethington. 2008. How the presence of feeders affects the use of local floral resources by hummingbirds: A case study from southern Arizona. The Condor 110: 786–791. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.8621

McWhorter, T.J. & C. Martínez Del Rio. 2000. Does gut function limit hummingbird food intake?. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 73: 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/316753

Mendonça, L.B. & L. Dos Anjos. 2005. Beija-flores (Aves, Trochilidae) e seus recursos florais em uma área urbana do Sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 22: 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752005000100007

Miller, R.S., S. Tamm, G.D. Sutherland & C.L. Gass. 1985. Cues for orientation in hummingbird foraging: color and position. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1139/z85-004

Miller, R.S. & R.E. Miller. 1971. Feeding activity and color preference of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds. The Condor 73: 309–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/1365757

Montgomerie, R.D. 1984. Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379882

Nachev, V., K.P. Stich, C. Winter, A. Bond, A. Kamil & Y. Winter. 2017. Cognition-mediated evolution of low-quality floral nectars. Science, 355: 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4219

Nicolson, S.W. 2002. Pollination by passerine birds: why are the nectars so dilute?. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 131: 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-4959(02)00014-3

Nicolson, S.W. 2007. Nectar consumers. Páginas 289-342 en: Nicolson, S.W., M. Nepi, & Ettore P. (eds). Nectaries and nectar. Springer, Dordrecht, Suiza. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5937-7

O'Connor, E. 2017. Hummingbird Foraging Preference: The Hierarchical Impacts of Color, Position, and Concentration on Visitation Frequency. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. Tesis de grado, Colgate University, New York, USA.

Percival, M. 1974. Floral ecology of coastal scrub in southeast Jamaica. Biotropica 6: 104–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2989824

Pimm, S., M.L. Rosenzweig & W.A. Mitchell. 1985. Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66: 798-807. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940541

Pyke, G.H. & N.M. Waser. 1981. The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13: 260–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2387804

Pyke, G.H. 1978. Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: testing the marginal value theorem. American Zoologist 18: 739-752. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/18.4.739

R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Disponible en: https://www.R-project.org/ [Consultado el 10 de julio de 2021]

Ramírez-Burbano, M., J.V. Sandoval-Sierra & L.G. Gómez-Bernal. 2021. Uso de recursos florales por el Zamarrito Multicolor Eriocnemis mirabilis (Trochilidae) en el Parque Nacional Natural Munchique, Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana 5: 64–77. https://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/ojs/index.php/roc/article/view/144

Richards, S.A. 2002. Temporal partitioning and aggression among foragers: modeling the effects of stochasticity and individual state. Behavioral Ecology 13: 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.3.427

Rico-Guevara, A. & M.A. Rubega. 2011. The hummingbird tongue is a fluid trap, not a capillary tube. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 9356–9360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016944108

Rico-Guevara, A. 2014. Morphology and Function of the Drinking Apparatus in Hummingbirds. Tesis de Doctorado, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, USA.

Rico-Guevara, A., K.J. Hurme, M.A. Rubega & D. Cuban. 2023. Nectar feeding beyond the tongue: hummingbirds drink using phase-shifted bill opening, flexible tongue flaps and wringing at the tips. Journal of Experimental Biology, 226: jeb245074. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.245074

Rico-Guevara, A., M.A. Rubega, K.J. Hurme & R. Dudley. 2019. Shifting paradigms in the mechanics of nectar extraction and hummingbird bill morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology 1: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/oby006

Rico-Guevara, A., T.H. Fan & M.A Rubega. 2015. Hummingbird tongues are elastic micropumps. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282: 20151014. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1014

Roberts, W.M. 1996. Hummingbirds’ nectar concentration preferences at low volume: the importance of time scale. Animal Behaviour 52: 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0180

Rojas-Nossa, S.V.R. 2013. Asociación entre el robo de néctar y las características florales en una comunidad montana de los Andes colombianos. Ecosistemas 22: 107-112.

Rousseu, F., Y. Charette & M. Bélisle. 2014. Resource defense and monopolization in a marked population of ruby‐throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris). Ecology and evolution 4: 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.972

Ruschi, A. 1953. A cor preferida pelos beija-flores e a porcentagem de açucar preferida pelos mesmos na solução de água açucarada. Boletim do Museu de Biologia 22: 1–5.

Sandlin, E.A. 2000. Cue use affects resource subdivision among three coexisting hummingbird species. Behavioral Ecology 11: 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.5.550

Smith, J. W., C.W. Benkman & K. Coffey. 1999. The use and misuse of public information by foraging red crossbills. Behavioral Ecology 10: 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.1.54

Snow, B.K. & D. Snow. 1988. Birds and Berries: A Study of an Ecological Interaction. Poyser Monographs, Londres, Reino Unido. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472597076.

Stiles, F.G. 1975. Ecology, flowering phenology, and hummingbird pollination of some Costa Rican Heliconia species. Ecology 56: 285–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934961

Stiles, F.G. 1976. Taste preferences, color preferences, and flower choice in hummingbirds. The Condor 78: 10–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366912

Stiles, F.G. 1981. Geographical aspects of bird-flower coevolution, with particular reference to Central America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68: 323–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/2398801

Stiles, F.G. 1995. Behavioral, ecological and morphological correlates of foraging for arthropods by the hummingbirds of a tropical wet forest. The Condor 97: 853–878. https://doi.org/10.2307/1369527

Stiles, F.G. & C.E. Freeman. 1993. Patterns in floral nectar characteristics of some bird-visited plant species from Costa Rica. Biotropica 25: 191–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389183

Stiles, F.G. & L.L. Wolf. 1970. Hummingbird territoriality at a tropical flowering tree. The Auk 87: 467–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/4083791

Stiles, F.G. & L.L. Wolf. 1979. Ecology and evolution of lek mating behavior in the long-tailed hermit hummingbird. Ornithological Monographs 27: 1–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/40166760

Stromberg, M.R. & P.B. Johnsen. 1990. Hummingbird sweetness preferences: Taste or viscosity?. The Condor 92: 606–612. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368680

Suarez, R.K. & C.L. Gass. 2002. Hummingbird foraging and the relation between bioenergetics and behaviour. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 133: 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00165-4

Tamm, S. & C.L. Gass. 1986. Energy intake rates and nectar concentration preferences by hummingbirds. Oecologia 70: 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377107

Teixeira, J.G., M.A. Assunção & C. De Melo. 2012. Efeito da introdução de bebedouros artificiais na partição de nicho entre apodiformes (Aves: Trochilidae) e passeriformes. Horizonte Científico 6: 1–20. http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/horizontecientifico/article/view/14771

Tellez-Colmenares, Nicolas. 2018. Agresión y forrajeo de néctar en colibríes (Aves: Trochilidae) en comederos artificiales cerca de Fusagasugá, Colombia. Departamento de Biología. Tesis de maestría, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Temeles, E.J. 1996. A new dimension to hummingbird-flower relationships. Oecologia 105: 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00330015

Temeles, E.J. & W.M. Roberts. 1993. Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: an experimental analysis of hummingbirds. Oecologia 94: 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317307

Temeles, E.J., Y.B. Linhart, M. Masonjones & H.D. Masonjones. 2002. The role of flower width in hummingbird bill length-flower length relationships. Biotropica 34: 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2002.tb00243.x

Tobias, J. 1997. Asymmetric territorial contests in the European robin: the role of settlement costs. Animal Behaviour 54: 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0383

Toloza-Moreno, D.L., D.A. León-Camargo & L. Rosero-Lasprilla. 2014. El ciclo anual de una comunidad de colibríes (Trochilidae) en bosques altoandinos intactos y paramizados en la Cordillera Oriental de Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana. 14: 28–47. https://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/ojs/index.php/roc/article/view/325

Weinstein, B.G., & C.H. Graham. 2016. Evaluating broad scale patterns among related species using resource experiments in tropical hummingbirds. Ecology 97: 2085–2093. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0328.1

Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, USA.

Wickham, H., R. François, L. Henry & K. Müller. 2021. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.0.6. Disponible en: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr [Consultado el 10 de julio de 2021]

Wolf, L.L. 1970. The impact of seasonal flowering on the biology of some tropical hummingbirds. The Condor 72: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366469

Wolf, L.L. 1978. Aggressive social organization in nectarivorous birds. American Zoologist 18: 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/18.4.765

Wolf, L.L. & F.R. Hainsworth. 1977. Temporal patterning of feeding by hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 25: 976–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(77)90049-5

Wolf, L.L., F.R. Hainsworth & F.B. Gill. 1975. Foraging Efficiencies and Time Budgets in Nectar‐Feeding Birds. Ecology 56: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935304

Wolf, L.L., F.R. Hainsworth & F.G. Stiles. 1972. Energetics of foraging: rate and efficiency of nectar extraction by hummingbirds. Science 176: 1351–1352. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.176.4041.1351

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Derechos de autor 2023 Los Autores. Revista Ornitología Colombiana, Asociación Colombiana de Ornitología ACO

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.