The hummingbird tongue is a fluid trap, not a capillary tube
Edited* by David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved April 8, 2011 (received for review November 18, 2010)
Commentary
May 24, 2011
Abstract
Hummingbird tongues pick up a liquid, calorie-dense food that cannot be grasped, a physical challenge that has long inspired the study of nectar-transport mechanics. Existing biophysical models predict optimal hummingbird foraging on the basis of equations that assume that fluid rises through the tongue in the same way as through capillary tubes. We demonstrate that the hummingbird tongue does not function like a pair of tiny, static tubes drawing up floral nectar via capillary action. Instead, we show that the tongue tip is a dynamic liquid-trapping device that changes configuration and shape dramatically as it moves in and out of fluids. We also show that the tongue–fluid interactions are identical in both living and dead birds, demonstrating that this mechanism is a function of the tongue structure itself, and therefore highly efficient because no energy expenditure by the bird is required to drive the opening and closing of the trap. Our results rule out previous conclusions from capillarity-based models of nectar feeding and highlight the necessity of developing a new biophysical model for nectar intake in hummingbirds. Our findings have ramifications for the study of feeding mechanics in other nectarivorous birds, and for the understanding of the evolution of nectarivory in general. We propose a conceptual mechanical explanation for this unique fluid-trapping capacity, with far-reaching practical applications (e.g., biomimetics).
Acknowledgments.
We thank D. Sustaita for extensive feedback, R. Colwell, K. Schwenk, C. Elphick, T. Fan, and two anonymous reviewers for critical reading, K. Hurme for substantial comments, C. Clark and R. Prum for the loan of high-speed cameras, and T. Landberg and B. Ryerson for discussion. Many thanks to G. Stiles, and the staff of the ornithological collections at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, the University of Connecticut, the Smithsonian Institution, and the American Museum of Natural History. This work was supported by a Multidisciplinary Environmental Research Award from the Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering of the University of Connecticut to A.R.-G.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information (PDF)
Supporting Information
- Download
- 656.88 KB
SM01.mov
- Download
- 8.47 MB
SM02.mov
- Download
- 8.65 MB
SM03.mov
- Download
- 8.52 MB
SM04.mov
- Download
- 8.41 MB
References
1
S Vogel Life’s Devices (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ), pp. 82–129 (1988).
2
MW Denny Air and Water (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993).
3
H Tributsch, N Nadeždina, J Čermák, Infrared images of heat fields around a linear heater in tree trunks: What can be learned about sap flow measurement? Ann For Sci 63, 1–8 (2006).
4
MT Tyree, Plant hydraulics: The ascent of water. Nature 423, 923 (2003).
5
RB Suter, RB Rosenberg, S Loeb, H Wildman, JH Long, Locomotion on the water surface: Propulsive mechanisms of the fisher spider Dolomedes triton. J Exp Biol 200, 2523–2538 (1997).
6
RB Suter, J Gruenwald, Predator avoidance on the water surface? Kinematics and efficacy of vertical jumping by Dolomedes (Araneae: Pisauridae). J Arachnol 28, 201–210 (2000).
7
DL Hu, JWM Bush, Meniscus-climbing insects. Nature 437, 733–736 (2005).
8
DL Hu, JWM Bush, The hydrodynamics of water-walking arthropods. J Fluid Mech 644, 5–33 (2010).
9
MA Rubega, BS Obst, Surface-tension feeding in phalaropes: Discovery of a novel feeding mechanism. Auk 110, 169–178 (1993).
10
MA Rubega, Surface tension prey transport in shorebirds: How widespread is it? Ibis 139, 488–493 (1997).
11
R Blossey, Self-cleaning surfaces: Virtual realities. Nat Mater 2, 301–306 (2003).
12
W Song, DD Veiga, CA Custódio, JF Mano, Bioinspired degradable substrates with extreme wettability properties. Adv Mater 21, 1830–1834 (2009).
13
AR Parker, CR Lawrence, Water capture by a desert beetle. Nature 414, 33–34 (2001).
14
Y Zheng, et al., Directional water collection on wetted spider silk. Nature 463, 640–643 (2010).
15
K Schwenk, MA Rubega, Diversity of vertebrate feeding systems. Physiological and Ecological Adaptations to Feeding in Vertebrates, eds JM Starck, T Wang (Science Publishers, Enfield, NH), pp. 1–41 (2005).
16
FG Stiles, Geographical aspects of bird-flower coevolution, with particular reference to Central America. Ann Mo Bot Gard 68, 323–351 (1981).
17
TH Fleming, N Muchhala, Nectar-feeding bird and bat niches in two worlds: Pantropical comparisons of vertebrate pollination systems. J Biogeogr 35, 764–780 (2008).
18
WCL Martin The Naturalist’s Library: A General History of Humming-Birds or the Trochilidae, ed W Jardine (H.G. Bohn, London) Vol 41, 65–68 (1833).
19
JG Kingsolver, TL Daniel, Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategy in hummingbirds: Energetics, tongue morphology, and licking behavior. Oecologia 60, 214–226 (1983).
20
AJ Heyneman, Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars: Dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia 60, 198–213 (1983).
21
S Tamm, CL Gass, Energy intake rates and nectar concentration preferences by hummingbirds. Oecologia 70, 20–23 (1986).
22
MR Stromberg, PB Johnsen, Hummingbird sweetness preferences: Taste or viscosity? Condor 92, 606–612 (1990).
23
CL Gass, WM Roberts, The problem of temporal scale in optimization: Three contrasting views of hummingbird visits to flowers. Am Nat 140, 829–853 (1992).
24
WM Roberts, Hummingbirds’ nectar concentration preferences at low volume: The importance of time scale. Anim Behav 52, 361–370 (1996).
25
M Bateson, SD Healy, TA Hurly, Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proc Biol Sci 270, 1271–1276 (2003).
26
BG Collins, Nectar intake and foraging efficiency: Responses of honeyeaters and hummingbirds to variations in floral environments. Auk 125, 574–587 (2008).
27
P Renvoisé, JWM Bush, M Prakash, D Quéré, Drop propulsion in tapered tubes. Europhys Lett 86, 64003 (2009).
28
A Köhler, CDC Leseigneur, L Verburgt, SW Nicolson, Dilute bird nectars: Viscosity constrains food intake by licking in a sunbird. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 299, 1068–1074 (2010).
29
RD Montgomerie, Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: Response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63, 229–236 (1984).
30
FG Stiles, Taste preferences, color preferences, and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78, 10–26 (1976).
31
W Van Riper, Hummingbird feeding preferences. Auk 75, 100–101 (1958).
32
GH Pyke, NM Waser, The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13, 260–270 (1981).
33
PW Ewald, WA Williams, Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99, 573–576 (1982).
34
X Guo, et al., Two- and three-dimensional folding of thin film single-crystalline silicon for photovoltaic power applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 20149–20154 (2009).
35
JL Liu, ZX Nie, WG Jiang, Deformation field of the soft substrate induced by capillary force. Phys B Condensed Matter 404, 1195–1199 (2009).
36
T Vestad, DWM Marr, J Oakey, Flow control for capillary-pumped microfluidic systems. J Micromech Microeng 14, 1503–1506 (2004).
37
JK Luo, et al., Moving-part-free microfluidic systems for lab-on-a-chip. J Micromech Microeng 19, 054001 (2009).
38
J Bico, B Roman, L Moulin, A Boudaoud, Elastocapillary coalescence in wet hair. Nature 432, 690 (2004).
39
C Py, et al., Capillary origami: Spontaneous wrapping of a droplet with an elastic sheet. Phys Rev Lett 98, 156103 (2007).
40
RD Weymouth, RC Lasiewski, AJ Berger, The tongue apparatus in hummingbirds. Acta Anat 58, 252–270 (1964).
41
H Scharncke, Contribution to the morphology and developmental evolution of the tongue of the Trochilidae, Meliphagidae and Picidae (Beiträge zur Morphologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Zunge der Trochilidae, Meliphagidae und Picidae). J Ornithol 79, 425–491, (in German). (1931).
42
FR Hainsworth, On the tongue of a hummingbird: Its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46, 64–78 (1973).
43
FG Stiles, Seasonal patterns and coevolution in the hummingbird-flower community of a Costa Rican subtropical forest. Ornithol Monogr 36, 757–787 (1985).
44
WW Weathers, FG Stiles, Energetics and water balance in free-living tropical hummingbirds. Condor 91, 324–331 (1989).
45
KA Baum, WE Grant, Hummingbird foraging behavior in different patch types: Simulation of alternative strategies. Ecol Modell 137, 201–209 (2001).
46
CM Berns, DC Adams, Bill shape and sexual shape dimorphism between two species of temperate hummingbirds: Black-Chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri) and Ruby-Throated hummingbird (A. colubris). Auk 127, 626–635 (2010).
47
EJ Temeles, WM Roberts, Effect of sexual dimorphism in bill length on foraging behavior: An experimental analysis of hummingbirds. Oecologia 94, 87–94 (1993).
48
JA McGuire, CC Witt, JV Remsen, R Dudley, DL Altshuler, A higher-level taxonomy for hummingbirds. J Ornithol 150, 155–165 (2009).
49
DC Paton, BG Collins, Bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds: A review of morphology, function and performance, with intercontinental comparisons. Austral Ecol 14, 473–506 (1989).
50
CT Downs, Some preliminary results of studies on the bill and tongue morphology of Gurney’s Sugarbird and some southern African sunbirds. Ostrich 75, 169–175 (2004).
51
YS Sohn, et al., A microbead array chemical sensor using capillary-based sample introduction: Toward the development of an “electronic tongue”. Biosens Bioelectron 21, 303–312 (2005).
52
JM Diamond, WH Karasov, D Phan, FL Carpenter, Digestive physiology is a determinant of foraging bout frequency in hummingbirds. Nature 320, 62–63 (1986).
53
TJ McWhorter, C Martínez del Rio, Does gut function limit hummingbird food intake? Physiol Biochem Zool 73, 313–324 (2000).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Classifications
Submission history
Published online: May 2, 2011
Published in issue: June 7, 2011
Keywords
Acknowledgments
We thank D. Sustaita for extensive feedback, R. Colwell, K. Schwenk, C. Elphick, T. Fan, and two anonymous reviewers for critical reading, K. Hurme for substantial comments, C. Clark and R. Prum for the loan of high-speed cameras, and T. Landberg and B. Ryerson for discussion. Many thanks to G. Stiles, and the staff of the ornithological collections at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, the University of Connecticut, the Smithsonian Institution, and the American Museum of Natural History. This work was supported by a Multidisciplinary Environmental Research Award from the Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering of the University of Connecticut to A.R.-G.
Notes
*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.
See Commentary on page 9321.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite this article
The hummingbird tongue is a fluid trap, not a capillary tube, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
108 (23) 9356-9360,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016944108
(2011).
Copied!
Copying failed.
Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.