Locomotion and Energetics of Divergent Foraging Strategies in Hummingbirds: A Review

Synopsis Hummingbirds have two main foraging strategies: territoriality (defending a patch of flowers) and traplining (foraging over routine circuits of isolated patches). Species are often classified as employing one or the other. Not only have these strategies been inconsistently defined within the behavioral literature, but this simple framework also neglects the substantial evidence for flexible foraging behavior displayed by hummingbirds. Despite these limitations, research on hummingbird foraging has explored the distinct avenues of selection that proponents of either strategy presumably face: trapliners maximizing foraging efficiency, and territorialists favoring speed and maneuverability for resource defense. In earlier studies, these functions were primarily examined through wing disc loading (ratio of body weight to the circular area swept out by the wings, WDL) and predicted hovering costs, with trapliners expected to exhibit lower WDL than territorialists and thus lower hovering costs. While these pioneering models continue to play a role in current research, early studies were constrained by modest technology, and the original expectations regarding WDL have not held up when applied across complex hummingbird assemblages. Current technological advances have allowed for innovative research on the biomechanics/energetics of hummingbird flight, such as allometric scaling relationships (e.g., wing area–flight performance) and the link between high burst lifting performance and territoriality. Providing a predictive framework based on these relationships will allow us to reexamine previous hypotheses, and explore the biomechanical trade-offs to different foraging strategies, which may yield divergent routes of selection for quintessential territoriality and traplining. With a biomechanical and morphofunctional lens, here we examine the locomotor and energetic facets that dictate hummingbird foraging, and provide (a) predictions regarding the behavioral, biomechanical, and morphofunctional associations with territoriality and traplining; and (b) proposed methods of testing them. By pursuing these knowledge gaps, future research could use a variety of traits to help clarify the operational definitions of territoriality and traplining, to better apply them in the field.