Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of nectar volume and concentration on sugar intake rates of Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae)

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Sugar intake rates of captive Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) feeding at artificial flowers varied across species, and as a function of nectar volume and concentration within each species. Red Wattlebirds (Anthochaera carunculata, 110 g), achieved higher intake rates than New Holland Honeyeaters (Phylidonyris novaehollandiae, 20 g), and both achieved higher rates than Eastern Spinebills (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris, 10 g). These results reflect differences in bill and tongue dimensions as well as in body mass. Sugar intake rates for all three species increased with volume (5–50 μl) at any given concentration (10–60% mass/mass sucrose). For a given volume, sugar intake rates peaked at intermediate concentrations: 40–50% for the two larger species, and 30–40% for the smallest species. Published studies for other nectarivores foraging at unlimited volume feeders also show optimal nectar concentrations of 30–50%. However, biophysical theory predicts optima at 20–26% for small volumes, and plants presumed to be adapted for bird-pollination often have dilute nectar (20–30%). To explore this discrepancy further, we presented New Holland Honeyeaters with a range of sucrose concentrations (10–50%) using two presentation schemes. In the first we varied concentration but kept volume constant, thus varying gross sugar reward available in each concentration. This gave maximum sugar intake rates at 50%. In the second we varied both volume and concentration so that gross sugar rewards were equal for all solutions, decoupling high concentrations and large sugar rewards. This gave optima at 20%. We argue that variation among plants in nature more closely resembles the latter, “equal sugar presentation” scheme, and therefore, that dilute nectars may indeed represent adaptations for bird pollination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker HG (1975) Sugar concentrations in nectars from humming-bird flowers. Biotropica 7:37–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker HG, Baker I (1983) Floral nectar sugar constituents in relation to pollinator type. In: CE Jones Little RA (eds) Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 117–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CL (1988) Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: effects of sex, size, age and nectar concentration. Funct Ecol 2:289–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolten AB, Feinsinger P (1978) Why do hummingbird flowers secrete dilute nectar? Biotropica 10:307–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I (1979) On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia 41:301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cibula DA, Zimmerman M (1987) Bumblebee foraging behavior: change in departure decisions as a function of experimental nectar manipulations. Am Midl Nat 117:386–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins BG, Paton DC (1989) Consequences of differences in body size, wing length and leg morphology for nectar-feeding birds. Aust J Ecol 14:269–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson RMC, Elliott DC, Eliott WH, Jones KM (1969) Data for biochemical research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1971) The Principles of Pollination Ecology. 2nd revised ed. Pergamon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinsinger P (1978) Ecological interactions between plants and hummingbirds in a successional tropical community. Ecol Monogr 48:269–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford HA (1976) The honeyeaters of Kangaroo Island. South Aust Ornithol 27:199–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford HA (1979) Interspecific competition in Australian honeyeaters — depletion of common resources. Aust J Ecol 4:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford HA, Paton DC (1977) The comparative ecology of ten species of honeyeaters in South Australia. Aust J Ecol 2:399–407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ford HA, Paton DC, Forde N (1979) Birds as pollinators of Australian plants. NZJ Bot 17:509–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford HA, Pursey JF (1982) Status and feeding of the Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris at at New England National Park, north-eastern NSW. Emu 82:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galen C, Plowright RC (1985) The effects of nectar level on pollen carryover in inflorescences of fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium; Onagraceae). Can J Bot 63:488–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass CL, Sutherland GD (1985) Specialization by territorial hummingbirds on experimentally enriched patches of flowers: energetic profitability and learning. Can J Zool 163:2115–2124

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A:65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia 25:101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1983) Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of handling time. Oecologia 57:274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1986) Effects of nectar concentration and corolla depth on flower handling efficiency of bumble bees. Oecologia 69:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD, Real LA (1987) Why are bumble bees risk averse? Ecology 68:1104–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B, Raven PH (1972) Energetics and pollination ecology. Science 176:597–602

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heyneman AJ (1983) Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars-dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia 60:198–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging by bumblebees: hunting by expectation. Behaviour 29:1166–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees. Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper SD, Burdidge AH (1986) Speciation of bird-pollinated plants in South-Western Australia. In: Ford HA, Paton DC (eds) The dynamic partnership: birds and plants in southern Australia. South Australian Government printer, Adelaide, pp 20–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Keighery GJ (1982) Bird-pollinated plants in Western Australia. In: J.A. Armstrong, J.M. Powell, A.J. Richards (eds) Pollination and Evolution. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, pp 77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1979) On the mechanics and energetics of nectar feeding in butterflies. J Theor Biol 76:167–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1983) Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategies in hummingbirds: energetics, tongue morphology and licking behavior. Oecologia 60:214–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May PG (1985) Nectar uptake rates and optimal nectar concentrations of two butterfly species. Oecologia 66:381–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie RD (1985) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63:229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie RD, McA Eadie J, Harder LD (1985) What do foraging hummingbirds maximize? Oecologia 63:357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC (1979) The behaviour and feeding ecology of the New Holland honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae in Victoria. PhD thesis, Monash University, Melbourne

  • Paton DC (1982a) The diet of the New Holland Honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae. Aust J Ecol 7:279–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC (1982b) The influence of honeyeaters on flowering strategies of Australian plants. In: JA Armstrong, JM Powell, AJ Richards (eds) Pollination and Evolution. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, pp 95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC (1985) Food supply, population structure, and behaviour of New Holland Honeyeaters Phylidonyris novaehollandiae in a woodland near Horsham, Victoria. In: A Keast, HF Recher, HA Ford, DA Saunders (eds) Birds of Eucalypt forests and woodlands: ecology, conservation, management. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, pp 219–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC (1986) Honeyeaters and their plants in south-eastern Australia. In: Ford HA, Paton DC (eds) The Dynamic Partnership: Birds and Plants in Southern Australia. SA Government Printer, Adelaide, pp 9–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC (1988) Interdependence of Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) and nectar-producing plants. Acta XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologius. Univ of Ottawa Prep, Ottawa, Canada, pp 549–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC, Collins BG (1990) Bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds: a review of morphology, function and performance, with intercontinental comparisons. Aust J Ecol (in press)

  • Paton DC, Ford HA (1977) Pollination by birds in some native plants in South Australia. Emu 77:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton DC, Ford HA (1983) The influence of plant characteristics and honeyeater size on levels of pollination in Australian plants. In: Jones CE, Little RA (eds) Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 235–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Pivnick KA, McNeil JN (1985) Effects of nectar concentration on butterfly feeding: measured feeding rates for Thymelicus lineola (Lepidoptera: hesperiidae) and a general feeding model for adult lepidoptera. Oecologia 66:226–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants JM (1981) Bumblebee response to variation in nectar availability. Ecology 62:1648–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: testing the marginal value theorem. Am Zool 18:739–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1980) The foraging behaviour of Australian honeyeaters: a review and some comparisons with hummingbirds. Aust J Ecol 5:343–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1981a) Optimal nectar production in a hummingbird pollinated plant. Theor Pop Biol 20:326–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1981b) Hummingbird foraging on artificial inflorescences. Behav Anal Lett 1:11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1981c) Honeyeater foraging: a test of optimal foraging theory. Behaviour 29:878–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Waser NM (1981) The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13:260–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc (1982) Sas User's Guide: Basics, 1982 Edition. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximise efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson BB, Neff JL (1983) Evolution and diversity of floral rewards. In: Jones CE, Little RA (eds) Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 142–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiles FG (1976) Taste preferences color preferences and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78:10–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm S (1989) Importance of energy costs in central place foraging by hummingbirds. Ecology 70:195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm S, Gass CL (1986) Energy intake rates and nectar concentration preferences by hummingbirds. Oecologia 70:20–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD (1986) Pollen transport and deposition by bumble bees in Erythronium: influences of floral nectar and bee grooming. J Ecol 74:329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Plowright RC (1980) Pollen carry-over, nectar rewards, and pollinator behavior with special reference to Diervilla lonicera. Oecologia 46:68–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington KD (1981) Factors influencing pollen flow in bumblebee-pollinated Delphinium virescens. Oikos 37:153–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller GD (1972) Evaluating responses of honey bees to sugar solutions using an artificial-flower feeder. Ann Entomol Soc Am 65:857–862

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waser NM (1983) The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. In: Real L (ed) Pollination Biology. Academic Press, London, pp 242–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: a last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. Second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodrow AW (1968) Some factors affecting selection of sucrose solutions by foraging honey bees. Am Bee J 108:313–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt R, Shannon TR (1986) Nectar production and pollination of Asclepias exaltata. Syst Bot 11:326–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman M (1983) Plant reproduction and optimal foraging: experimental nectar manipulations in Delphinium nelsonii. Oikos 41:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitchell, R.J., Paton, D.C. Effects of nectar volume and concentration on sugar intake rates of Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae). Oecologia 83, 238–246 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317758

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317758

Key words

Navigation