Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valone, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Valone, T. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1992 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Information for patch assessment: a field investigation with black-chinned hummingbirds

Thomas J. Valone

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

ABSTRACT

I examined the kinds of information black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) used when exploiting artificial resource patches in the field. I determined whether birds (1) only used current patch-sample information or (2) combined current patch-sample with prior information (the distribution of resources among patches) to estimate patch quality, and (3) whether the kinds of information used depended on environmental variability. I established two environments that differed in amount of variation in patch subtypes and determined the use of information by assessing the correlation between the number of rewards obtained and the number of consecutive unrewarded patch probes just before patch departure. In the low-variance environment, most birds appeared to combine prior information with patch-sample information. Individuals using prior information foraged more efficiently than those that did not. In the high-variance environment, some birds appeared to combine patch-sample information with prior information, whereas others apparently relied solely on patch-sample information to estimate patch quality, with no difference in foraging efficiency. In both environments, prior information was used after approximately 25 patches were exploited.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
R. L. Kendal, I. Coolen, and K. N. Laland
The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 269 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
E. A. Sandlin
Cue use affects resource subdivision among three coexisting hummingbird species
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2000; 11(5): 550 - 559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
D. W. Schemske and H. D. Bradshaw Jr.
Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)
PNAS, October 12, 1999; 96(21): 11910 - 11915.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.