Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Hummingbird migration and flowering
synchrony in the temperate forests of
northwestern Mexico
Gabriel Lo
´pez-Segoviano
1
, Maribel Arenas-Navarro
1
, Ernesto Vega
2
and Maria del Coro Arizmendi
3
1Posgrado en Ciencias Biolo
´gicas, Unidad de Posgrado, Coordinacio
´n del Posgrado en Ciencias
Biolo
´gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto
´noma de Me
´xico, Coyoaca
´n, Ciudad de Me
´xico, Mexico
2Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Auto
´noma
de Me
´xico, Morelia, Michoaca
´n, Mexico
3Laboratorio de Ecologı
´a, Unidad de Biotecnologı
´a y Prototipos, Universidad Nacional
Auto
´noma de Me
´xico, Tlalnepantla, Estado de Me
´xico, Mexico
ABSTRACT
Background: Many species of birds are morphologically and physiologically adapted
for migration. Migratory movements of birds can range from thousands of
kilometers, such as when birds migrate from wintering to breeding sites in summer,
to several kilometers, such as when birds migrate among habitats in a single
mountain system. The main factor that influences bird migration is the seasonal
fluctuation of food resources; climate, predation, competition for resources and
endogenous programming are also important factors. Hummingbirds are highly
dependent on nectar, so their migration is likely correlated with the blooming of
plant species. The ecological implications of altitudinal migration in the mountains
of North America as well as the latitudinal migration of Selasphorus rufus
through Mexico are still poorly understood. To explore these issues, over three
non-consecutive years, we evaluated interannual variation in the phenologies of a
latitudinal migrant (S. rufus) and an altitudinal migrant (Amazilia beryllina) and
their visited plants.
Methods: We assessed the relationship between two migratory hummingbirds and
flower abundance in 20 fixed-radius plots (25 m radius). All available flowers were
counted along transects (40 5 m) inside each fixed-radius plot. Sampling was
performed every 10 days from November 12 through February 20 of 2010–2011,
2013–2014 and 2015–2016, resulting in a total of 11 samples of each plot per period.
Phenological variation and the relationships among hummingbird abundance,
flower abundance and vegetation type were evaluated using a generalized additive
mixed model.
Results: S. rufus abundance was related to sampling time in the first and third
periods; this relationship was not significant in the second period. A. beryllina
abundance was related with the sampling time over all three periods. The abundance
of S. rufus hummingbirds was significantly related to the number of Salvia iodantha
flowers. The abundance of A. beryllina hummingbirds was related to the number of
S. iodantha and Cestrum thyrsoideum flowers and the total number of flowers.
We found a non-significant correlation between S. rufus and A. beryllina abundance
and vegetation types.
How to cite this article Lo
´pez-Segoviano et al. (2018), Hummingbird migration and flowering synchrony in the temperate forests of
northwestern Mexico. PeerJ 6:e5131; DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131
Submitted 13 September 2017
Accepted 8 June 2018
Published 6 July 2018
Corresponding author
Maria del Coro Arizmendi,
coro@unam.mx
Academic editor
Stuart Pimm
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
page 12
DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131
Copyright
2018 López-Segoviano et al.
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, the long-distance migration of S. rufus was
not consistent over the sampling periods. The migration of S. rufus through the
study region may be altered by changes in climate, as has occurred with other species
of migratory birds. In the present study, the migration of S. rufus was correlated with
the blooming of S. iodantha. In comparison, the altitudinal migrant A. beryllina
responded to the availability of floral resources but was not associated with a
particular plant. The migration of this latter species in the area probably depends on
multiple factors, including climatic and demographic factors, but is particularly
dependent on the supply of floral resources and competition for these resources.
Subjects Animal Behavior, Ecology, Ecosystem Science, Zoology, Climate Change Biology
Keywords Hummingbird migration, Flowering phenology, Selasphorus rufus,Amazilia beryllina,
Local migration, Altitudinal migration
INTRODUCTION
Many species of birds are morphologically and physiologically adapted for migratory
movements (Newton, 2007). The main factor that influences bird migration movement is
the seasonal fluctuation of food resources (Levey & Stiles, 1992;Newton, 2007;Faaborg et al.,
2010); climate, predation, competition for resources and endogenous programming
(related to reproduction, molting, fat deposition and migratory restlessness) are also
important (Newton, 2007). A large number of bird species breed at northern latitudes in the
summer and then travel thousands of kilometers to tropical wintering destinations (Newton,
2007;Faaborg et al., 2010), while others migrate locally and seasonally from high to
lower altitudes (Newton, 2007). For example, nectarivorous and frugivorous species depend
on the seasonality of floral and fruit resources, which are their main source of energy, and make
seasonal movements at many scales following available food sources (Levey & Stiles, 1992).
Only 29 out of the 328 known hummingbird species (8.84%) are long-distance
migrants (Rappole & Schuchmann, 2003). Of these, 13 inhabit North America (Rappole &
Schuchmann, 2003); these species breed during the summer in Canada and the United
States and then migrate southwards during autumn (Howell, 2003). Hummingbirds
migrate along established migration routes and make refueling stops at flowering grounds
(Phillips, 1975;Gass, 1979;Carpenter, Paton & Hixon, 1983;Carpenter et al., 1993;
Calder & Contreras-Martı
´nez, 1995;Schuchmann, 1999;Calder, 2004;Zenzal & Moore,
2016). The duration of their stay at a particular site can be as short as one day to as long as
three weeks (Gass, 1979;Carpenter et al., 1993;Nemeth & Moore, 2012;Zenzal & Moore,
2016). As hummingbirds are highly dependent on floral nectar (Gass, 1979;Hixon,
Carpenter & Paton, 1983;Schuchmann, 1999), their migrations are correlated with
flowering phenologies (Bertin, 1982;Calder, 1987;McKinney et al., 2012).
Similar behavior can be observed among tropical hummingbirds that move up or down
foothills following the blooming of their preferred plant species (Des Ganges, 1979;
Arizmendi & Ornelas, 1990;Hobson et al., 2003;Tinoco et al., 2009;Fraser, Diamond &
Chavarria, 2010). Rappole & Schuchmann (2003) define altitudinal migration as the seasonal
movement of a species with a home range that shifts over a distance of <10 km; altitudinal
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 2/17
migrants generally return on a seasonal basis to their site of origin. These authors suggested
that 87 hummingbird species make altitudinal migrations (26.52% of known species). These
migratory movements of hummingbird species occur throughout different mountain
systems of America (Des Ganges, 1979;Stiles, 1985;Des Ganges, 1979;Levey & Stiles, 1992;
Hobson et al., 2003;Tinoco et al., 2009). At a local scale, altitudinal migrations are likely also
related to the availability of floral resources, but birds must weigh the cost and intensity of
competition for these resources (Wolf, Stiles & Hainsworth, 1976;Des Ganges, 1979).
In addition, recent climate changes can alter the timing of bird migrations
(Cotton, 2003;Gordo et al., 2005;Marra et al., 2005;Saino et al., 2007;Cohen et al., 2015),
resulting in an increasing mismatch between migratory birds and food resources (Both
et al., 2006,2009;Jones & Cresswell, 2010). Similarly, food resources can be influenced by
climatic events, thus affecting the availability of resources for migratory birds (Visser,
Holleman & Gienapp, 2006;Reed, Jenouvrier & Visser, 2013). Such phenomena can negatively
affect migratory bird populations (Both et al., 2006,2009;Jones & Cresswell, 2010).
We studied two hummingbird species: one latitudinal migrant, Selasphorus rufus
(Healy & Calder, 2006), and one altitudinal migrant, Amazilia beryllina (Des Ganges, 1979;
Arizmendi, 2001). S. rufus breeds in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and Canada
and, during winter, migrates from the southwestern United States through central Mexico
(Healy & Calder, 2006). Like other species of hummingbirds (Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1978;
McKinney et al., 2012;Nemeth & Moore, 2012;Graham et al., 2016;Zenzal & Moore, 2016)
and songbirds (Moore et al., 2017), S. rufus requires refueling stops in different places along
its flyway (Gass, 1979;Carpenter, Paton & Hixon, 1983;Carpenter et al., 1993;Calder, 2004).
The arrival of S. rufus at stopover sites is correlated with the blooming of its feeding plants
(Calder, 1987;Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1978;Russell et al., 1994).
A. beryllina is most commonly found between 500 and 1,800 masl (Weller & Kirwan,
2017). In the study region, A. beryllina is common and abundant at mid-mountain
ranges at around 1,000 masl (Lo
´pez-Segoviano, 2018). Des Ganges (1979) stated that
A. beryllina is an opportunistic species that follows the blooming of feeding plants;
this species may also be more sensitive than resident species to variations in the
availability of nectar. A. beryllina are larger and heavier than S. rufus and migrate to
the upper ranges of mountains in the study region during fall/winter (Lo
´pez-Segoviano,
Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018). In addition, A. beryllina exhibits an intermediate level
of aggressive dominance, while S. rufus has a low level of dominance at the study site
(Lo
´pez-Segoviano, Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018). So, S. rufus is subordinate to
A. beryllina (Lo
´pez-Segoviano, Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018).
The ecological implications of altitudinal migrations in the mountains of
North America (Boyle, 2017) as well as the latitudinal migration of S. rufus through
Mexico (Schondube et al., 2004) are still poorly understood. Therefore, we evaluated
interannual variation in the phenologies of the S. rufus and A. beryllina hummingbird
species and their visited plants in three nonconsecutive years. For S. rufus, we expected to
find a consistent pattern in its migratory phenology because long-distance migrants are
more influenced by endogenous rhythms in comparison to short-distance migrants
(Newton, 2007). For A. beryllina, we expected to find a more variable pattern in its
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 3/17
migratory phenology, as this species is likely influenced by local flowering and by the
abundances of other hummingbird species in the local assemblage.
METHODS
Study area
The study site was located along a western slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental mountain
range at the El Palmito Concordia ejidal lands (2334′16″N; 10550′15″W) in Sinaloa,
Mexico, between 1,800 and 2,200 masl (Fig. 1B). The climate is temperate sub-humid with
an average annual precipitation of 1,247 mm (SMN, 2018). The Sierra Madre Occidental
is the longest and most continuous mountain range in Mexico and represents an
important temperate forest corridor (Gonza
´lez-Elizondo et al., 2012). A vegetation
gradient of oak forest, pine-oak forest and cloud forest mixed with riparian areas and
secondary forest is present at the study site (Dı
´az, 2005).
A total of 14 hummingbird species have been described for the region: five residents
(Hylocharis leucotis,Lampornis clemenciae,Eugenes fulgens,Selasphorus platycercus and
Atthis heloisa), four altitudinal migrants (Amazilia violiceps,A. beryllina,Cynanthus
latirostris and Colibri thalassinus) and five latitudinal migrants (Selasphorus rufus,S. sasin,
S. calliope,Calypte costae and Archilochus colubris;Lo
´pez-Segoviano, 2012).
Hummingbird censuses
To determine the migratory phenology of the studied hummingbirds, we counted
individuals in 20 fixed-radius plots (25 m radius) separated by at least 188 m
(minimum distance between two plots; mean distance = 332.42 m; SD = 116.33 m). At the
center of each plot, all detected hummingbirds were counted for 10 min. The plots
were located in a 300 ha area covered with different types of vegetation (six plots with
pine-oak forest, three plots with cloud forest, four plots with forest edges, four plots with
clear-cut secondary vegetation and three plots with riparian vegetation; Fig. 1C). The plots
were fixed and distributed to represent the heterogeneity of the study site (Fig. 1C).
All plots were sampled every 10 days from November 12 to February 20 in 2010–2011,
2013–2014 and 2015–2016, resulting in a total of 11 samples of each plot per sampling period.
We followed all recommended ethical guidelines to avoid harming hummingbird
species and other animals in the research area and to minimize any effects on the
environment (Fair, Ellen & Jones, 2010).
We obtained permits from the Sub-Secretariat for Environmental Protection
Management, General Directorate for Wildlife (Subsecretarı
´a de Gestio
´n para la
Proteccio
´n Ambiental, Direccio
´n General de Vida Silvestre; permit numbers
SGPA/DGVS/01833/11 and SGPA/DGGFS/712/1289/16) of Mexico. The collection
permit allowed voucher specimens of plants to be collected for identification by specialists.
Flower censuses
To evaluate flower availability, all flowers inside the fixed-radius plots used for bird counts
were counted along transects of 40 m in length and 5 m in width. These transects
intersected the center of each plot and were oriented toward the direction where the
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 4/17
majority of flowers within the plot were found. The abundance and identity of all flowers
were recorded. Floral censuses were carried out at the same frequency as the bird counts:
11 times per period for each plot.
Statistical analysis
The migratory phenologies and the relationship between hummingbird and flower
abundances were analyzed using a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM). We used
the numbers of A. beryllina and S. rufus species in each plot as the response variable and
time, vegetation type (Fig. 1C) and the numbers of S. iodantha and C. thyrsoideum flowers
and total flowers (total flowers of 15 plant species) as the predictor variables. Time was
measured from 0 to 100 days where day 0 was the initial sampling date on November
12 and day 100 was the final sampling date on February 20. We fitted a GAMM with a
Poisson (S. rufus) and Quasipoisson (A. beryllina) distribution, and the plots were
incorporated as a random effect (Crawley, 2007;Zuur et al., 2009). We analyzed the model
using the package mgcv (Wood, 2009) in R software version 3.3.3 (R Core Team, 2017).
RESULTS
Migratory phenology
In the three studied periods, A. beryllina and S. rufus were abundant in the region and
were only surpassed in abundance by the resident species H. leucotis. Selasphorus rufus was
Figure 1 Map of the study site at El Palmito in Sinaloa, Mexico. (A) Location of the study site in North-
western Mexico. (B) Location of the study site at El Palmito, Sinaloa. (C) Location of plots at study site;
different symbols represent distinct vegetation types. Full-size
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5131/fig-1
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 5/17
the second most abundant species in the region, representing 10.6% of the total
hummingbirds recorded during the first sampling period, 12.2% during the second
sampling period and 20.4% during the third sampling period (Table S1). A. beryllina
was the third most abundant species in the region during the first and third sampling
periods (representing 9.1% and 8.4%, respectively, of the total hummingbirds observed)
and the fourth most abundant species (representing 5.4% of the total hummingbirds
observed) during the second sampling period (Table S1). The peak of abundance of
A. beryllina and S. rufus were separate during the three studied periods; A. beryllina’s peaks
of abundance occurred first followed by the peak of abundance of S. rufus (Fig. 2). The
GAMM showed that the abundance of S. rufus was related with the time of sampling
during the first and third periods (Table 1;Fig. 2), yet this relationship was not significant
for the second period (Table 1). During 2013–2014 S. rufus arrived earlier and maintained
low numbers and high variation during all the winter (Fig. 2). Notably, a comparatively
higher level of precipitation was recorded during the second period (Table S2). The
abundance of A. beryllina was related with the time of sampling over all three periods
(Table 1).
Flowering synchrony
We registered 15 plant species at the phenological transects. S. iodantha and C. thyrsoideum
were the most abundant species. Over the three sampling periods, S. iodantha represented
69%, 61% and 77%, respectively, of total flowers counted in the region, followed by
C. thyrsoideum, which represented 24%, 35% and 14%, respectively, of total flowers
(Table S3). The flowering phenology of S. iodantha was similar during each sampling
period and corresponded with the arrival of S. rufus to the study site; S. rufus tended to
follow the flowering of S. iodantha, a pattern that repeats each sampling period (Fig. 2).
Meanwhile, A. beryllina arrival to the study site much earlier than S. rufus (Fig. 2); in
the first period A. beryllina peak of abundance were when C. thyrsoideum flowering
occurred, in the second period it followed C. thyrsoideum weakly. C. thyrsoideum
presented a distinct blooming tendency in third sampling period. The flowering of
C. thyrsoideum was almost finished when S. rufus presented its peak of abundance in
each sampling period (Fig. 3).
According to the GAMM models, a significant correlation was found between the
number of S. rufus hummingbirds and the number of S. iodantha flowers (Table 1;
Fig. 3). A non-significant correlation was found between the number of S. rufus
hummingbirds and the number of C. thyrsoideum flowers and total flowers (Table 1;
Fig. 3). Also, a non-significant correlation was found between the number of S. rufus
hummingbirds and the vegetations type in each plot (Table 1). A. beryllina was related to
the number of S. iodantha flowers, C. thyrsoideum (Fig. 3) flowers and total number of
flowers (Table 1). Finally, we found a non-significant correlation between the number
A. beryllina hummingbirds and the vegetation types in each plot (Table 1).
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 6/17
Figure 2 Abundance of hummingbirds S. rufus and A. beryllina and of flowers S. iodantha and
C. thyrsoideum during the following sampling periods. (A) 2010–11, (B) 2013–14 and (C) 2015–16.
The total of numbers of S. rufus (open black circle), A. beryllina (black asterisk), flowers of S. iodantha
(open red triangle) and flowers of C. thyrsoideum (open red square) are shown.
Full-size
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5131/fig-2
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 7/17
DISCUSSION
Migratory phenology
Our study showed variation in the relationship between the abundance of S. rufus and the
sampling date during the second period, while a constant relationship was found for
A. beryllina over all three sampled periods. This result contrasts with those of Supp et al.
(2015) where long-migration hummingbird species like S. rufus were found to have
migratory periods with lower interannual variation in comparison to hummingbird
species with shorter migratory routes. However, variation in climatic conditions can
affect the migration times of some bird species (Cotton, 2003;Gordo et al., 2005;
Marra et al., 2005;Saino et al., 2007). Marra et al. (2005) suggested that variation in spring
temperatures influences the migration of long-distance migratory birds; in this study,
birds were found to migrate earlier in warm years and later in colder years. The
environmental conditions (i.e., precipitation) varied in the second period of our study,
yet the change in the migration pattern of S. rufus may also be the result of variation in
local environmental conditions at its breeding sites.
Meanwhile, altitudinal migrant hummingbirds may perform movements of only a few
kilometers but can search for resources along an altitudinal gradient. Generally, altitudinal
migration is optional in the short term; sedentary species might migrate, for example,
to avoid periods of adverse weather (reviewed by Faaborg et al., 2010). The altitudinal
migrant A. beryllina examined in our study may migrate depending on local climate
conditions and resource quality. Several additional studies establish that seasonal variation
of food resources is the main factor that influences the altitudinal migration of birds
(Levey & Stiles, 1992;Newton, 2007;Faaborg et al., 2010;Boyle, 2017). For altitudinal
migrant hummingbirds, the availability of food resources as well as competition with other
hummingbirds for shared resources is an important factor (Wolf, Stiles & Hainsworth,
1976;Des Ganges, 1979). Wolf, Stiles & Hainsworth (1976) stated that dominance
interactions and floral availability influence the migration of altitudinal migrant
hummingbirds. Meanwhile, Rappole & Schuchmann (2003) proposed that hummingbird
Table 1 Results from the generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) to assess relationships between
the abundances of S. rufus and A. beryllina and flowering plants (S. iodantha,C. thyrsoideum and
total number of flowers), time per sampling.
S. rufus A. beryllina
df/edf FPdf/edf FP
Vegetation 4 0.46 0.765 4 0.947 0.436
s(Times):Period 1 2.375 3.408 0.037 6.783 46.25 <0.001
s(Times):Period 2 1.000 0.111 0.738 1.000 95.85 <0.001
s(Times):Period 3 3.775 19.656 <0.001 4.119 59.37 <0.001
s(S. iodantha) 6.405 9.932 <0.001 1.648 11.87 <0.001
s(C. thyrsoideum) 1.000 0.884 0.347 1.000 20.50 <0.001
s(Total flowers) 1 1.207 0.272 6.436 23.02 <0.001
Note:
Later, the ANOVA command was used to clarify the significance of the individual terms (Crawley, 2007). df, degrees of
freedom; edf, effective degrees of freedom for the spline function.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 8/17
migrations respond to seasonal scarcity of resources as well as seasonal flushes of resources
at other sites. However, more studies are needed to determine the importance of
competition for resources and climatic conditions for A. beryllina’s altitudinal migration.
Figure 3 Scatter plots of the number of S. rufus (open red circle) and A. beryllina (black cross) and the
number of flowersof S. iodantha and C. thyrsoideum during the following sampling periods.S. iodantha:
(A) 2010–11, (C) 2013–14 and (E) 2015–16; C. thyrsoideum: (B) 2010–11, (D) 2013–14 and (F) 2015–16.
Full-size
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5131/fig-3
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 9/17
Furthermore, annual variation in the climatic conditions of winter sites could decouple
birds from their usual migratory phenology (Cotton, 2003;Saino et al., 2007). If migratory
hummingbirds are unable to adjust their migration to specific flowering dates or
shortened flowering duration of their preferred plants along their migratory routes,
these hummingbirds will be less successful, and their populations will likely be reduced
(Faaborg et al., 2010). Thus, the decoupling of migrants and food resource availability
along migratory routes can have direct consequences for the state of migratory
populations (Both et al., 2006,2009;Jones & Cresswell, 2010). For example,
Reed, Jenouvrier & Visser (2013) found such a mismatch can have strong effects on the
relative fitness and egg-laying dates of the migratory bird Parus major (Great Tits) for
several years, although a weak effect was found for mean demographic rates. However,
population decline as a result of phenological mismatching cannot be considered as a
common process affecting all migratory bird species, as this may depend on multiple
factors such as migration distance, continent and habitat seasonality (Both et al., 2009;
Jones & Cresswell, 2010).
Flowering synchrony
Our study found a relationship between the number of S. rufus migratory birds and the
number of S. iodantha flowers. As the migration of S. rufus is the longest of all migrating
hummingbirds in North America (Supp et al., 2015), the coupling of its migratory route
with a diverse assemblage of blooming plant species is expected (Calder, 1987;
Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1978;Russell et al., 1994). In this study, the presence of S. rufus
was coupled with the flowering of S. iodantha in northwestern Mexico; this was also found
in another area of western Mexico (Manantla
´n, Jalisco) where S. rufus was the most
abundant migratory hummingbird in winter and visited S. iodantha flowers (vs. other
flowers) more frequently (Arizmendi, 2001). This confirms the importance of the
flowering phenology of S. iodantha for the fall migration of S. rufus along its migratory
route in western Mexico. This can be considered equivalent to the role of Impatiens biflora
flowers for the fall migration of the Ruby-Throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris);
the peak in flowering times of I. biflora is closely related to the peak migration time of the
Ruby-Throated Hummingbird throughout the eastern United States (Bertin, 1982).
However, recent studies found that the correlation in phenology between Ruby-Throated
Hummingbirds and I. biflora is not supported in southern breeding individuals in
United States (Zenzal et al., 2018).
In this respect, migratory species’ selection of refueling sites directly influences their
survival. In an unknown environment, migratory species have limited time and energy to
sample the habitat and experience greater susceptibility to predation and increased
competition (McGrath, van Riper & Fontaine, 2009). In response, S. rufus has been shown
to establish territories that exclude other hummingbird species along its migratory route
in the United States to gain priority access to food resources (Gass, 1979;Kodric-Brown &
Brown, 1978;Kuban & Neill, 1980). However, in Mexico, local hummingbird species have
larger body sizes (including A. beryllina) and dominate smaller latitudinal migratory
species, displacing them to floral patches with less rewarding resources (Des Ganges, 1979;
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 10/17
Calder & Contreras-Martı
´nez, 1995;Rodrı
´guez-Flores & Arizmendi, 2016;Lo
´pez-Segoviano,
Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018). For this reason, S. rufus individuals prefer to feed on floral
patches of S. iodantha; these flowers do not provide maximum energy quality but are
available to S. rufus because more dominant hummingbird species prefer other resources
(Lo
´pez-Segoviano, Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018). This synchrony between the latitudinal
migration of S. rufus and flowering phenology may also be present at other sites along
the migration route of S. rufus in Mexico (Calder & Contreras-Martı
´nez, 1995).
Regarding abundances, we found that A. beryllina abundance was related to the
availability of floral resources in general (S. iodantha,C. thyrsoideum and total number
of flowers) in the study area. This confirms that altitudinal migratory hummingbirds
primarily respond to variability in the supply of local floral resources (Stiles, 1985).
During periods with less abundant floral resources, hummingbird species respond by
performing altitudinal or partial migrations to areas with better supplies of floral
resources (Stiles, 1985). Thus, hummingbird communities change depending on the
availability of local floral resources (Feinsinger, 1976;Arizmendi & Ornelas, 1990;
Cotton, 2007). This is especially evident in species with short altitudinal migrations, such
as A. beryllina, which can navigate through regions with different vegetation types and
climate. However, it is necessary to perform further studies on the additional factors that
influence the migration of A. beryllina such as biotic interactions (e.g., competition
among species) and abiotic factors (e.g., climatic conditions).
Finally, we did not find a relationship between the number of S. rufus and A. beryllina
hummingbirds and different vegetation types. Many temperate forests in Mexico have
been clear-cut; some of these areas are now regenerating, resulting in secondary vegetation
with abundant plants for hummingbirds to feed on. In some cases, secondary vegetation
may even have more available flowers than pristine vegetation (Calder & Contreras-
Martı
´nez, 1995;Rodrı
´guez-Flores & Arizmendi, 2016). Rodrı
´guez-Flores & Arizmendi
(2016), for example, found more A. beryllina and S. rufus individuals in secondary
vegetation than in pine forest. Likewise, we found S. iodantha and C. thyrsoideum flowers
in all vegetation types but to a greater extent in clearings with secondary vegetation.
Even so, we did not find that vegetation type was important for the abundance of the
studied hummingbird species. In another study, Cohen, Moore & Fischer (2012) translocated
and released migrant songbirds in different forested habitat types during their spring
migration; these authors found that migrants explore the habitat the morning after release
and move further in habitat types characterized by reduced food resources. They also
suggested that migrant songbirds may search for areas with sufficient food as opposed
to areas with the most abundant food supply (Cohen, Moore & Fischer, 2012).
CONCLUSION
Contrary to expectations, the migration of the long-distance migratory hummingbird
S. rufus was not consistent over the sampled periods. During migratory movements,
birds decide where to stop over in response to a combination of endogenous and
exogenous factors (Cohen, Moore & Fischer, 2012). The migration of S. rufus through the
study region can be altered by changes in climate, as has been demonstrated for other
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 11/17
species of migratory birds (Cotton, 2003;Gordo et al., 2005;Marra et al., 2005;Saino et al.,
2007); however, long-term data are necessary to establish that changes in migratory
patterns are associated with changes in climate. In our study, the presence of S. rufus
coincided with the blooming of S. iodantha, although this was not the case for the
altitudinal migratory species A. beryllina. Furthermore, S. rufus feeds more on S. iodantha
flowers than on C. thyrsoideum flowers (Lo
´pez-Segoviano, Bribiesca & Arizmendi, 2018).
In contrast, A. beryllina was not associated with a particular plant, as suggested by
Des Ganges (1979) at another study site, but responded to the overall availability of floral
resources. The migration of this latter altitudinal migratory species in the area likely
depends on the supply of floral resources and competition for such resources in addition
to multiple other factors, including climatic and demographic factors. More studies are
needed to clarify the migratory patterns of A. beryllina throughout the mountains of
Mexico.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Lorenzo Dı
´az, Sergio Dı
´az-Infante, Ana Marı
´a Contreras Gonza
´lez,
Cuauhte
´moc Gutie
´rrez, Rafael Bribiesca and Laura Nun
˜ez for assistance in the field.
We especially thank Ejido Forestal El Palmito for access to facilities and the study site.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
This work was supported by the Universidad Nacional Auto
´noma de Me
´xico (UNAM)
PAPIIT: IN216514, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act: 5087, and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı
´a (CONACyT):
239903. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
Universidad Nacional Auto
´noma de Me
´xico (UNAM) PAPIIT: IN216514 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act: 5087.
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı
´a (CONACyT): 239903.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Gabriel Lo
´pez-Segoviano conceived and designed the experiments, performed the
experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed
drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, follow up.
Maribel Arenas-Navarro performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared
figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 12/17
Ernesto Vega analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed
drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Maria del Coro Arizmendi conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data,
contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored
or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Animal Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body
and any reference numbers):
Permits were obtained from the Mexican government from the Subsecretarı
´ade
Gestio
´n para la Proteccio
´n Ambiental: Direccio
´n General de Vida Silvestre (permit
numbers SGPA/DGVS/01833/11 and SGPA/DGGFS/712/1289/16).
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data are provided as a Supplemental File.
Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/
10.7717/peerj.5131#supplemental-information.
REFERENCES
Arizmendi MC. 2001. Multiple ecological interactions: nectar robbers and Hummingbirds in a
highland forest in Mexico. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79(6):997–1006 DOI 10.1139/z01-066.
Arizmendi MC, Ornelas JF. 1990. Hummingbirds and their floral resources in a tropical dry forest
in Mexico. Biotropica 22(2):172–180 DOI 10.2307/2388410.
Bertin RI. 1982. The Ruby-throated Hummingbird and its major food plants: ranges,
flowering phenology, and migration. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60(2):210–219
DOI 10.1139/z82-029.
Both C, Bouwhuis S, Lessells CM, Visser ME. 2006. Climate change and population declines in a
long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441(7089):81–83 DOI 10.1038/nature04539.
Both C, Van Turnhout CAM, Bijlsma RG, Siepel H, Van Strien AJ, Foppen RPB. 2009.
Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in
seasonal habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277(1685):1259–1266
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2009.1525.
Boyle WA. 2017. Altitudinal bird migration in North America. Auk 134(2):443–465
DOI 10.1642/AUK-16-228.1.
Calder WA. 1987. Southbound through Colorado: migration of Rufous Hummingbirds. National
Geographic Research 3:40–51.
Calder WA. 2004. Rufous and broad-tailed Hummingbird. In: Nabhan GP, Brusca RC,
Van Devender TR, Dimmitt MA, eds. Conserving Migratory Pollinators and Nectar Corridors in
Western North America. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press and The Arizona-Sonora
Desert Museum, 204–224.
Calder WA, Contreras-Martı
´nez S. 1995. Migrant Hummingbird and warblers in Mexican
wintering grounds. In: Wilson MH, Sader SA, eds. Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds in
Mexico. Orono: Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publications, 727.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 13/17
Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Beuchat CA, Russell RW, Paton DC. 1993. Biphasic mass gain in
migrant Hummingbirds: body composition changes, torpor, and ecological significance.
Ecology 74:1173–1182 DOI 10.2307/1940487.
Carpenter FL, Paton DC, Hixon MA. 1983. Weight gain and adjustment of feeding territory size
in migrant Hummingbirds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 80(23):7259–7263 DOI 10.1073/pnas.80.23.7259.
Cohen EB, Moore FR, Fischer RA. 2012. Experimental evidence for the interplay of exogenous
and endogenous factors on the movement ecology of a migrating songbird. PLOS ONE
7(7):e41818 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0041818.
Cohen EB, Nemeth Z, Zenzal TJ, Paxton K, Diehl R, Paxton E, Moore FR. 2015. Spring resource
phenology and timing of songbird migration across the Gulf of Mexico. In: Wood EM,
Kellermann JL, eds. Phenological synchrony and bird migration: changing climate and seasonal
resources in North America. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 63–82.
Cotton PA. 2003. Avian migration phenology and global climate change. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(21):12219–12222
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1930548100.
Cotton PA. 2007. Seasonal resource tracking by Amazonian Hummingbirds. Ibis 149(1):135–142
DOI 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00619.x.
Crawley MJ. 2007. The R Book. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Des Ganges JL. 1979. Organization of a tropical nectar feeding bird guild in a variable
environment. Living Bird 17:199–236.
Dı
´az J. 2005. Tipos de Vegetacio
´n y Flora del Ejido el Palmito, Concordia Sinaloa. Culiacan:
PRONATURA A.C. Available at http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/proyectos/resultados/
VegetacionCQ014.pdf (accessed 2 August 2010).
Faaborg J, Holmes RT, Anders AD, Bildstein KL, Dugger KM, Gauthreaux SA, Heglund P,
Hobson KA, Jahn AE, Johnson DH, Latta SC, Levey DJ, Marra PP, Merkord CL, Nol E,
Rothstein SI, Sherry TW, Sillett TS, Thompson FR, Warnock N. 2010. Recent advances in
understanding migration systems of New World land birds. Ecological Monographs 80(1):3–48
DOI 10.1890/09-0395.1.
Fair JM, Ellen P, Jones J. 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. Washington, D.C.:
Ornithological Council.
Feinsinger P. 1976. Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecological Monographs
46(3):257–291 DOI 10.2307/1942255.
Fraser KC, Diamond AW, Chavarria L. 2010. Evidence of altitudinal moult-migration in a Central
American Hummingbird, Amazilia cyanura.Journal of Tropical Ecology 26(6):645–648
DOI 10.1017/S0266467410000404.
Gass CL. 1979. Territory regulation, tenure and migration in rufous Hummingbirds. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 57(4):914–992 DOI 10.1139/z79-112.
Gonza
´lez-Elizondo MS, Gonza
´lez-Elizondo M, Tena-Flores JA, Ruacho-Gonza
´lez L,
Lo
´pez-Enrı
´quez IL. 2012. Vegetacio
´n de la Sierra Madre Occidental, Me
´xico: una sı
´ntesis.
Acta Bota
´nica Mexicana 100:351–403 DOI 10.21829/abm100.2012.40.
Gordo O, Brotons L, Ferrer X, Comas P. 2005. Do changes in climate patterns in wintering areas
affect the timing of the spring arrival of trans-Saharan migrant birds? Global Change Biology
11(1):12–21 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00875.x.
Graham CH, Supp SR, Powers DR, Beck P, Lim MCW, Shankar A, Cormier T, Goetz S,
Wethington SM. 2016. Winter conditions influence biological responses of migrating
hummingbirds. Ecosphere 7(10):1–18 DOI 10.1002/ecs2.1470.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 14/17
Healy S, Calder WA. 2006. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus).Available at http://
bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/053 (accessed 2 February 2010).
Hixon MA, Carpenter FL, Paton DC. 1983. Territory area, flower density, and time budgeting in
Hummingbirds: an experimental and theoretical analysis. American Naturalist 122(3):366–391
DOI 10.1086/284141.
Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, Mila B, Lovette I, Dingle C, Smith TB. 2003. Stable isotopes as
indicators of altitudinal distributions and movements in an Ecuadorean Hummingbird
community. Oecologia 136(2):302–308 DOI 10.1007/s00442-003-1271-y.
Howell SNG. 2003. Hummingbirds of North America: The Photographic Guide. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Jones T, Cresswell W. 2010. The phenology mismatch hypothesis: are declines of migrant birds
linked to uneven global climate change? Journal of Animal Ecology 79(1):98–108
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01610.x.
Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH. 1978. Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual
dimorphism on territoriality of migrant Rufous Hummingbirds. Ecology 59(2):285–296
DOI 10.2307/1936374.
Kuban JF, Neill RL. 1980. Feeding ecology of Hummingbirds in the highlands of the Chisos
Mountains, Texas. Condor 82(2):180–185 DOI 10.2307/1367475.
Levey DJ, Stiles FG. 1992. Evolutionary precursors of long-distance migration: resource
availability and movement patterns in neotropical landbirds. American Naturalist
140(3):447–476 DOI 10.1086/285421.
Lo
´pez-Segoviano G. 2012. Comportamiento territorial y preferencias de forrajeo del colibrı
´
migratorio Selasphorus rufus dentro de un sitio invernal. Master’s thesis, Universidad Nacional
Auto
´noma de Me
´xico.
Lo
´pez-Segoviano G. 2018. Estructura de las comunidades de Colibrı
´es (Trochilidae) en un
gradiente altitudinal y su relacio
´n con la disponibilidad de alimento. Doctoral thesis,
Universidad Nacional Auto
´noma de Me
´xico.
Lo
´pez-Segoviano G, Bribiesca R, Arizmendi MDC. 2018. The role of size and dominance in the
feeding behaviour of coexisting Hummingbirds. Ibis 160(2):283–292 DOI 10.1111/ibi.12543.
Marra PP, Francis CM, Mulvihill RS, Moore FR. 2005. The influence of climate on the timing and
rate of spring bird migration. Oecologia 142(2):307–315 DOI 10.1007/s00442-004-1725-x.
McGrath LJ, Van Riper C III, Fontaine JJ. 2009. Flower power: tree flowering phenology as a settlement
cue for migrating birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 78(1):22–30 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01464.x.
McKinney AM, CaraDonna PJ, Inouye DW, Barr B, Bertelsen CD, Waser NM. 2012.
Asynchronous changes in phenology of migrating Broad-tailed Hummingbirds and their early-
season nectar resources. Ecology 93(9):1987–1993 DOI 10.1890/12-0255.1.
Moore FR, Covino KM, Lewis WB, Zenzal TJ, Benson TJ. 2017. Effect of fuel deposition rate on
departure fuel load of migratory songbirds during spring stopover along the northern coast of
the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Avian Biology 48(1):123–132 DOI 10.1111/jav.01335.
Nemeth Z, Moore FR. 2012. Differential timing of spring passage of Ruby-throated
Hummingbirds along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Field Ornithology
83(1):26–31 DOI 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2011.00352.x.
Newton I. 2007. The Migration Ecology of Birds. Oxford: Academic Press.
Phillips AR. 1975. The migrations of Allen’s and other Hummingbirds. Condor 77(2):196–205
DOI 10.2307/1365790.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 15/17
Rappole JH, Schuchmann KL. 2003. Ecology and evolution of Hummingbird population
movements and migration. In: Berthold P, Gwinner E, Sonnenschein E, eds. Avian Migration.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 39–51.
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org/.
Reed TE, Jenouvrier S, Visser ME. 2013. Phenological mismatch strongly affects individual fitness
but not population demography in a woodland passerine. Journal of Animal Ecology
82(1):131–144 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02020.x.
Rodrı
´guez-Flores CI, Arizmendi MC. 2016. The dynamics of Hummingbird dominance and
foraging strategies during the winter season in a highland community in Western Mexico.
Journal of Zoology 299(4):262–274 DOI 10.1111/jzo.12360.
Russell RW, Carpenter FL, Hixon MA, Paton DC. 1994. The impact of variation in stopover
habitat quality on migrant Rufous Hummingbirds. Conservation Biology 8(2):483–490
DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020483.x.
Saino N, Rubolini D, Jonze
´n N, Ergon T, Montemaggiori A, Stenseth NC, Spina F. 2007.
Temperature and rainfall anomalies in Africa predict timing of spring migration in
trans-Saharan migratory birds. Climate Research 35:123–134 DOI 10.3354/cr00719.
Schondube JE, Contreras-Martinez S, Ruan-Tejeda I, Calder WA, Santana CE. 2004. Migratory
patterns of the rufous Hummingbird in Western Mexico. In: Nabhan GP, Brusca RC,
Van Devender TR, Dimmitt MA, eds. Conserving Migratory Pollinators and Nectar Corridors in
Western North America. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press and The Arizona-Sonora
Desert Museum, 204–224.
Schuchmann KL. 1999. Familia Trochilidae (Hummingbirds). In: Del Hoyo J, Elliot A,
Sargatal J, eds. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, 468–680.
Servicio Metereolo
´gico Nacional (SMN). 2018. Normales Climatolo
´gicas. El Palmito: Informacio
´n
Climatolo
´gica. Available at http://smn.cna.gob.mx/tools/RESOURCES/Normales5110/
NORMAL15333.TXT (accessed 2 February 2017).
Stiles FG. 1985. Seasonal patterns and coevolution in the Hummingbird-flower community of a
Costa Rican subtropical forest. Ornithological Monographs 36:757–787 DOI 10.2307/40168315.
Supp SR, La Sorte FA, Cormier TA, Lim MCW, Powers DR, Wethington SM, Goetz S,
Graham CH. 2015. Citizen-science data provides new insight into annual and seasonal
variation in migration patterns. Ecosphere 6(1):1–19 DOI 10.1890/ES14-00290.1.
Tinoco BA, Astudillo PX, Latta SC, Graham CH. 2009. Distribution, ecology and conservation of
an endangered Andean Hummingbird: the violet-throated metaltail (Metallura baroni).
Bird Conservation International 19(1):63–76 DOI 10.1017/S0959270908007703.
Visser ME, Holleman LJM, Gienapp P. 2006. Shifts in caterpillar biomass phenology due to
climate change and its impact on the breeding biology of an insectivorous bird. Oecologia
147(1):164–172 DOI 10.1007/s00442-005-0299-6.
Weller AA, Kirwan GM. 2017. Berylline Hummingbird (Amazilia beryllina). In: del Hoyo J,
Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, De Juana E, eds. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive.
Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. Available at https://www.hbw.com/node/55510 (accessed
20 December 2017).
Wolf LL, Stiles FG, Hainsworth FR. 1976. Ecological organization of a tropical, highland
Hummingbird community. Journal of Animal Ecology 45(2):349–379 DOI 10.2307/3879.
Wood SN. 2009. mgcv. R Package Version 1.6-0.Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=mgcv (accessed 20 February 2017).
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 16/17
Zenzal TJ, Contina AJ, Kelly JF, Moore FR. 2018. Temporal migration patterns between natal
locations of ruby-throated Hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) and their Gulf Coast stopover
site. Movement Ecology 6(1):2 DOI 10.1186/s40462-017-0120-2.
Zenzal TJ, Moore FR. 2016. Stopover biology of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds (Archilochus
colubris) during autumn migration. Auk 133(2):237–250 DOI 10.1642/AUK-15-160.1.
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions
in Ecology with R. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
López-Segoviano et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.5131 17/17
