The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology
Abstract
SUMMARY: The hovering ability, rapidity of maneuvers and upregulated aerobic capacity of hummingbirds have long attracted the interest of flight biologists. The range of intra- and interspecific variation in flight performance among hummingbirds, however, is equally impressive. A dominant theme in hummingbird evolution is progressive invasion of higher-elevation habitats. Hypobaric challenge is met behaviorally through compensatory changes in wingbeat kinematics, particularly in stroke amplitude. Over evolutionary time scales, montane colonization is associated with increases in body mass and relative wing area. Hovering ability has been well-studied in several North American hummingbird taxa, yet the broad range of interspecific variation in hummingbird axial and appendicular anatomy remains to be assessed mechanistically. Such varied features as tail length, molt condition and substantial weight change due to lipid-loading can dramatically alter various features of the flight envelope. Compared with our present knowledge of hovering performance in hummingbirds, the mechanics of forward flight and maneuvers is not well understood. Relationships among flight-related morphology, competitive ability and foraging behavior have been the focus of numerous studies on tropical and temperate hummingbirds. Ecologists have hypothesized that the primary selective agents on hummingbird flight-related morphology are the behaviors involved in floral nectar consumption. However, flight behaviors involved in foraging for insects may also influence the evolution of wing size and shape. Several comparisons of hummingbird communities across elevational gradients suggest that foraging strategies and competitive interactions within and among species vary systematically across elevations as the costs of flight change with body size and wing shape.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Relatively larger wings at higher altitudes are systematically demonstrated among hummingbird species.
“an effect systematically demonstrated among hummingbird species”
From The physiology and biomechanics of avian flight at high altitude (2006) · cites this paper as Altshuler and Dudley, 2002
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 108 · Cited by 135
- Authors
- Altshuler, D. L., & Dudley, R.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (PA)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Biology
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2002-08-15
- Volume
- 205
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2325-2336
- ISSN
- 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9145
- OpenAlex
- W2128935730
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 108
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Smithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Physiological and biochemical adaptations
- Keywords
- hover, wingbeat kinematics, stroke amplitude, flight morphology, body mass, wing area, tail length, lipid loading, flight maneuvers, interspecific variation, elevation gradient, foraging behavior, nectar foraging, insect foraging, interspecific competition
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Birds, Ecology, Biological Evolution, Flight, Animal, Species Specificity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review