|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 200, Issue 21 2757-2763, Copyright © 1997 by Company of Biologists
JOURNAL ARTICLES |
P Chai and D Millard
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. pengchai@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
As the smallest birds, hummingbirds are the only birds capable of prolonged hovering. This suggests that hovering locomotion scales unfavourably with size. Is the hovering performance of larger hummingbird species more constrained by size than that of smaller ones? Maximal load-lifting capacities of the two largest species of hummingbirds found in the United States, the blue-throated (Lampornis clemenciae, 8.4 g) and magnificent (Eugenes fulgens, 7.4 g) hummingbird, as well as the two other local small species, the black-chinned (Archilochus alexandri, 3.0 g) and rufus (Selasphorus rufus, 3.3 g) hummingbird, were determined under conditions of short-burst performance. The power reserves of hummingbirds are substantial relative to normal hovering performance. The two large species lifted maximal loads close to twice their body mass for a very brief duration of over 0.4 s. The small species lifted maximal loads approximately equal to their own mass with a longer duration of over 0.6 s. For the two large species under maximal loading, estimates of burst muscle mass-specific mechanical power output assuming perfect elastic energy storage averaged 309 W kg-1, compared with 75 W kg-1 during free hovering without loading. For the two small species, these values were 228 W kg-1 and 88 W kg-1, respectively. The differences in aerodynamic force production and power output between the large and small size classes occur despite their similar wing stroke velocity. This indicates that, during burst performance in these hummingbirds, the larger ones had a higher load-lifting capacity and generated more muscle power. In spite of the twofold difference in body mass, both large and small hummingbirds have evolved to become potent aerial competitors in order to exploit their common food resource, nectar. Both size classes have evolved to cope with the multi-dimensional effects of size constraining their aerodynamics, muscle mechanics, metabolism and ecology.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. W. Tobalske Biomechanics of bird flight J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2007; 210(18): 3135 - 3146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. W. Tobalske, D. R. Warrick, C. J. Clark, D. R. Powers, T. L. Hedrick, G. A. Hyder, and A. A. Biewener Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight J. Exp. Biol., July 1, 2007; 210(13): 2368 - 2382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Marden Scaling of maximum net force output by motors used for locomotion J. Exp. Biol., May 1, 2005; 208(9): 1653 - 1664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Altshuler, R. Dudley, and J. A. McGuire Resolution of a paradox: Hummingbird flight at high elevation does not come without a cost PNAS, December 21, 2004; 101(51): 17731 - 17736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. E. Dillon and R. Dudley Allometry of maximum vertical force production during hovering flight of neotropical orchid bees (Apidae: Euglossini) J. Exp. Biol., February 1, 2004; 207(3): 417 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Altshuler and R. Dudley Kinematics of hovering hummingbird flight along simulated and natural elevational gradients J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2003; 206(18): 3139 - 3147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Altshuler and R. Dudley The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2002; 205(16): 2325 - 2336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. N. Askew and R. L. Marsh Muscle designed for maximum short-term power output: quail flight muscle J. Exp. Biol., August 1, 2002; 205(15): 2153 - 2160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Marden and L. R. Allen Molecules, muscles, and machines: Universal performance characteristics of motors PNAS, April 2, 2002; 99(7): 4161 - 4166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Boily and P. Magnan Relationship between individual variation in morphological characters and swimming costs in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) J. Exp. Biol., April 1, 2002; 205(7): 1031 - 1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Dudley Mechanisms and Implications of Animal Flight Maneuverability Integr. Comp. Biol., February 1, 2002; 42(1): 135 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. N. Askew, R. L. Marsh, and C. P. Ellington The mechanical power output of the flight muscles of blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis) during take-off J. Exp. Biol., January 11, 2001; 204(21): 3601 - 3619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Tobalske and K. Dial Effects of body size on take-off flight performance in the Phasianidae (Aves) J. Exp. Biol., January 11, 2000; 203(21): 3319 - 3332. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Marden and L. R. Allen Molecules, muscles, and machines: Universal performance characteristics of motors PNAS, April 2, 2002; 99(7): 4161 - 4166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
