SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Aigner, P.A. 2001. Optimality modelling and fitness trade-offs: when should plants become pollinator specialists? Oikos 85: 177184.
  • Aigner, P.A. 2004. Floral specialization without trade-offs: optimal corolla flare in contrasting pollination environments. Ecology 85: 25602569.
  • Altshuler, D.L., Dudley, R. & McGuire, J.A. 2004. Resolution of a paradox: hummingbird flight at high elevation does not come without a cost. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101: 1773117736.
  • Baker, H.G. 1975. Sugar concentration in nectars from hummingbird flowers. Biotropica 7: 3741.
  • Baker, H.G. & Baker, I. 1983. Floral nectar constituents in relation to pollinator type. In: Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology (C. E. Jones & R. J. Little, eds), pp. 117141. Scientific and Academic Editions, New York.
  • Blomberg, S.P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57: 717745.
  • Bolten, A.B. & Feinsinger, P. 1978. Why do hummingbirds flowers secrete dilute nectar? Biotropica 10: 307309.
  • Bolten, A.B., Feinsinger, P., Baker, H.G. & Baker, I. 1979. On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia 41: 301304.
  • Bradshaw, H.D. & Schemske, D.W. 2003. Allele substitution at a flower colour locus produces a pollinator shift in monkeyflowers. Nature 426: 176178.
  • Brice, A.T. 1992. The essentiality of nectar and arthropods in the diet of the Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 101: 151155.
  • Brodie, E.D. III, Moore, A.J. & Janzen, F.J. 1995. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 313318.
  • Búrquez, A. & Corbet, S.A. 1991. Do flowers reabsorb nectar? Funct. Ecol. 5: 369379.
  • Calder, W.A. 1979. On the temperature-dependency of optimal nectar concentration for birds. J. Theor. Biol. 78: 185196.
  • Campbell, D.R. 1996. Evolution of floral traits in a hermaphroditic plant: field measurements of heritabilities and genetic correlations. Evolution 50: 14421453.
  • Campbell, D.R., Waser, N.M. & Price, M.V. 1996. Mechanisms of hummingbird-mediated selection for flower width in Ipomopsis aggregata. Ecology 77: 14631472.
  • Castellanos, M.C., Wilson, P. & Thomson, J.D. 2002. Dynamic nectar replenishment in flowers of Penstemon (Scrophulariaceae). Am. J. Bot. 89: 111118.
  • Castellanos, M.C., Wilson, P. & Thomson, J.D. 2003. Pollen transfer by hummingbirds and bumblebees, and the divergence of pollination modes in Penstemon. Evolution 57: 27422752.
  • Castellanos, M.C., Wilson, P. & Thomson, J.D. 2004. ‘‘Anti-bee’’ and ‘‘pro-bird’’ changes during the evolution of hummingbird pollination in Penstemon flowers. J. Evol. Biol. 17: 876885.
  • Chapotin, S.M., Holbrook, N.M., Morse, S.R. & Gutiérrez, M.V. 2003. Water relations of tropical dry forest flowers: pathways for water entry and the role of extracellular polysaccharides. Plant Cell Environ. 26: 623630.
  • Chase, M.W., Soltis, D.E., Olmstead, R.G. et al. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Miss. Bot. Gard. 80: 528580.
  • Cresswell, J.E. 1998. Stabilizing selection and the structural variability of flowers within species. Ann. Bot. 81: 463473.
  • Cresswell, J.E. & Galen, C. 1991. Frequency-dependent selection and adaptive surfaces for floral character combinations: the pollination of Polemonium viscosum. Am. Nat. 138: 13421353.
  • Cruden, R.W., Hermann, S.M. & Peterson, S. 1983. Patterns of nectar production and plant animal coevolution. In: The Biology of Nectaries (B. Bentley & T. Elias, eds), pp. 126152. Columbia University Press, New York.
  • Díaz-Uriarte, R. & Garland, T. Jr 1996. Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45: 2747.
  • Davies, T.J., Barraclough, T.G., Chase, M.W., Soltis, P.S., Soltis, D.E. & Savolainen, V. 2004. Darwin's abominable mystery: insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101: 19041909.
  • De la Barrera, E. & Nobel, P.S. 2004. Nectar: properties, floral aspects, and speculations on origin. Trends Plant Sci. 9: 6569.
  • Delph, L.F. & Lively, M. 1992. Pollinator visitation, floral display, and nectar production of the sexual morphs of a gynodioecious shrub. Oikos 63: 161170.
  • Devlin, B. & Stephenson, A.G. 1985. Sex differential floral longevity, nectar secretion, and pollinator foraging in a protandrous species. Am. J. Bot. 72: 303310.
  • Faegri, K. & van der Pijl, L. 1979. The Principles of Pollination Ecology, 3rd edn. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
  • Fahn, A. 1979. Ultrastructure of nectaries in relation to nectar secretion. Am. J. Bot. 66: 977985.
  • Feinsinger, P. 1978. Ecological interactions between plants and hummingbirds in a successional tropical community. Ecol. Monogr. 48: 269287.
  • Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative data. Am. Nat. 125: 115.
  • Fleming, P.A., Hartman-Bakken, B., Lotz, C.N. & Nicolson, S.W. 2004. Concentration and temperature effects on sugar intake and preferences in a sunbird and a hummingbird. Funct. Ecol. 18: 223232.
  • Galen, C. & Cuba, J. 2001. Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55: 19631971.
  • Galen, C., Sherry, R.A. & Carroll, A.B. 1999. Are flowers physiological sinks or faucets? Costs and correlates of water use by flowers of Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 118: 461470.
  • Galetto, L. & Bernardello, G. 2004. Floral nectaries, nectar production dynamics and chemical composition in six Ipomoea species (Convolvulaceae) in relation to pollinators. Ann. Bot. 94: 269280.
  • Garland, T. Jr 1994. Quantitative genetics of locomotor behavior and physiology in a garter snake. In: Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioral Evolution (C. R. B. Boake, ed.), pp. 251277. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Adolph, S.C. 1994. Why not to do two-species comparative studies: limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiol. Zool. 67: 797828.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Carter, P.A. 1994. Evolutionary physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 56: 579621.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Díaz-Uriarte, R. 1999. Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: an examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Syst. Biol. 48: 547558.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Harvey, P.H. & Ives, A.R. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41: 1832.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Midford, P.E. & Ives, A.R. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral states. Am. Zool. 39: 374388.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Bennett, A.F. & Rezende, E.L. 2005. Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 30153035.
  • Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 326: 119157.
  • Grant, V. & Temeles, E.J. 1992. Foraging ability of rufous hummingbirds on hummingbird flowers and hawkmoth flowers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89: 94009404.
  • Hainsworth, F.R. 1973. On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 46: 6578.
  • Harder, L.D. & Cruzan, M.B. 1990. An evaluation of the physiological and evolutionary influences of inflorescence size and flower depth on nectar production. Funct. Ecol. 4: 559572.
  • Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Heinrich, B. 1975. Energetics of pollination. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6: 139170.
  • Heinrich, B. & Raven, P.H. 1972. Energetics and pollination ecology. Science 176: 597602.
  • Hurlbert, A.H., Hosoi, S.A., Temeles, E.J. & Ewald, P.W. 1996. Mobility of Impatiens capensis flowers: effect on pollen deposition and hummingbird foraging. Oecologia 105: 243246.
  • Irwin, R.E. & Brody, A.K. 1999. Nectar-robbing bumblebees reduce the fitness of Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Ecology 80: 17031712.
  • Irwin, R.E., Adler, L.S. & Brody, A.K. 2004. The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and plant defense. Ecology 85: 15031511.
  • Ives, A.R., Midford, P.E. & Garland, T. Jr 2007. Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Syst. Biol. 56: 252270.
  • Kearns, C.A. & Inouye, D.W. 1993. Techniques for Pollination Biologists. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO.
  • Kingsolver, J.G. & Daniel, T.L. 1983. Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategy in hummingbirds: energetics, tongue morphology and licking behavior. Oecologia 60: 214226.
  • Klinkhamer, P.G.L. & van der Veen-van Wijk, C.A.M. 1999. Genetic variation in floral traits of Echium vulgare. Oikos 85: 515522.
  • Klinkhamer, P.G.L., de Jong, T.J. & Metz, A.J. 1994. Why plants can be too attractive: a discussion of measures to estimate male fitness. J. Ecol. 82: 191194.
  • Lara, C. & Ornelas, J.F. 2001. Preferential nectar robbing of flowers with long corollas: experimental studies of two hummingbird species visiting three plant species. Oecologia 128: 263273.
  • Leiss, K.A., Vrieling, K. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. 2004. Heritability of nectar production in Echium vulgare. Heredity 92: 446451.
  • Lotz, C.N. & Schondube, J.E. 2006. Sugar preferences in nectar- and fruit-eating birds: behavioural patterns and physiological causes. Biotropica 38: 315.
  • Maddison, W.P. & Maddison, D.R. 2004. Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis. Version 1.01 [on line]. Available at: http://mesquiteproject.org.
  • Martínez del Rio, C., Schondube, J.E., McWhorter, T.J. & Herrera, L.G. 2001. Intake responses in nectar feeding birds: digestive and metabolic causes, osmoregulatory consequences, and coevolutionary effects. Am. Zool. 41: 902915.
  • Martins, E.P. & Garland, T. Jr 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45: 534557.
  • Mitchell, R.J. 1993. Adaptive significance of Ipomopsis aggregata nectar production: observation and experiment in the field. Evolution 47: 2535.
  • Mitchell, R.J. 1994. Effects of floral traits, pollination visitation, and plant size on Ipomopsis aggregata fruit production. Am. Nat. 143: 870889.
  • Mitchell, R.J. 2004. Heritability of nectar traits: why we know so little? Ecology 85: 15271533.
  • Mitchell, R.J. & Shaw, R.G. 1993. Heritability of floral traits for the perennial wild flower Penstemon centranthifolius (Scrophulariaceae): clones and crosses. Heredity 71: 185192.
  • Mitchell, R.J. & Waser, N.M. 1992. Adaptive significance of Ipomopsis aggregata nectar production: pollination success of single flowers. Ecology 73: 633638.
  • Mitchell, R.J., Shaw, R.G. & Waser, N.M. 1998. Pollinator selection, quantitative genetics, and predicted evolutionary responses of floral traits in Penstemon centranthifolius (Scrophulariaceae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 159: 331337.
  • Montgomerie, R.D. 1984. Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia 63: 229236.
  • Mulcahy, D.L. 1979. The rise of the angiosperms: a genecological factor. Science 206: 2023.
  • Nepi, M., Guarnieri, M. & Pacini, E. 2001. Nectar secretion, reabsorption, and sugar composition in male and female flowers of Cucurbita pepo. Int. J. Plant Sci. 162: 353358.
  • Nicolson, S.W. 1995. Direct demonstration of nectar reabsorption in the flowers of Grevillia robusta (Proteaceae). Funct. Ecol. 9: 584588.
  • Nicolson, S.W. & Fleming, P.A. 2003. Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions. Pl. Syst. Evol. 238: 139153.
  • Ordano, M. & Ornelas, J.F. 2004. Generous-like flowers: nectar production in two epiphytic bromeliads and a meta-analysis of removal effects. Oecologia 140: 495505.
  • Ordano, M. & Ornelas, J.F. 2005. The cost of nectar replenishment in two epiphytic bromeliads. J. Trop. Ecol. 21: 541547.
  • Pacini, E., Nepi, M. & Vesprini, J.L. 2003. Nectar biodiversity: a short review. Pl. Syst. Evol. 238: 721.
  • Pagel, M.D. 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J. Theor. Biol. 156: 431442.
  • Pleasants, J.M. 1983. Nectar production in Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 70: 14681475.
  • Pleasants, J.M. & Chaplin, S.J. 1983. Nectar production rates of Asclepias quadrifolia: causes and consequences of individual variation. Oecologia 59: 232238.
  • Purvis, A. & Garland, T. Jr 1993. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst. Biol. 42: 569575.
  • Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple application for analyzing comparative data. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11: 247251.
  • Purvis, A., Gittleman, J.L. & Luh, H.K. 1994. Truth or consequences: effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. J. Theor. Biol. 167: 293300.
  • Pyke, G.H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 523575.
  • Pyke, G.H. 1991. What does it cost a plant to produce floral nectar? Nature 350: 5859.
  • Pyke, G.H. & Waser, N.M. 1981. The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeaters flowers. Biotropica 13: 260270.
  • Rathcke, B.J. 1992. Nectar distributions, pollinator behavior, and plant reproductive success. In: Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal–Plant Interactions (M. D. Hunter, T. Ohgushi & P. W. Price, eds), pp. 113138. Academic Press, New York.
  • Reed, M.L., Findlay, N. & Mercer, F.V. 1971. Nectar production in Abutilon. IV. Water and solute relations. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 24: 677688.
  • Rezende, E.L., Bozinovic, F. & Garland, T. Jr 2004. Climatic adaptation and the evolution of basal and maximum rates of metabolism in rodents. Evolution 58: 13611374.
  • Roberts, W.M. 1996. Hummingbirds’ nectar concentration preferences at low volume: the importance of time scale. Anim. Behav. 52: 361370.
  • Roff, D.A. 1997. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York.
  • Sanderson, M.J., Purvis, A. & Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 105109.
  • Schemske, D.W. & Bradshaw, H.D. 1999. Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkey flowers (Mimulus). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96: 1191011915.
  • Scobell, S.A. & Scott, P.E. 2002. Visitors and floral traits of a hummingbird-adapted cactus (Echinocereus coccineus) show only minor variation along an elevational gradient. Am. Midl. Nat. 147: 115.
  • Simpson, B.B. & Neff, J.L. 1983. Evolution and diversity of floral rewards. In: Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology, Scientific and Academic Editions (C. E. Jones & R. J. Little, eds), pp. 142159. Van Norstrand, New York.
  • Soltis, D.E., Soltis, P.S., Chase, M.W., Mort, M.E., Albach, D.C., Zanis, M., Savolainen, V., Hahn, W.H., Hoot, S.B., Fay, M.F., Axtell, M., Swensen, S.M., Nixon, K.C. & Farris, J.S. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from a combined data set of 18S rDNA, rbcl, and atpB sequences. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133: 381461.
  • Southwick, E.E. 1984. Photosynthate allocation to floral nectar: a neglected energy investment. Ecology 65: 17751779.
  • Stanton, M.L. 2003. Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. Am. Nat. 162: S10S23.
  • Stanton, M.L. & Young, H.J. 1994. Selecting for floral character associations in wild radish, Raphanus sativus L. J. Evol. Biol. 7: 271285.
  • Stanton, M.L., Snow, A.A. & Handel, S.N. 1986. Floral evolution: attractiveness to pollinators influences male fitness. Science 232: 16251627.
  • Stephenson, A.G., Winsor, J.A., Schlichting, C.D. & Davis, L.E. 1988. Pollen competition, nonrandom fertilization, and progeny fitness: a reply to Charlesworth. Am. Nat. 132: 303308.
  • Stiles, F.G. 1976. Taste preferences, color preferences, and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78: 1026.
  • Stiles, F.G. & Freeman, C.E. 1993. Patterns in floral nectar characteristics of some bird-visited plant species from Costa Rica. Biotropica 25: 191205.
  • Sutherland, G.D. & Gass, C.L. 1995. Learning and remembering of spatial patterns by hummingbirds. Anim. Behav. 50: 12731286.
  • Temeles, E.J. 1996. A new dimension to hummingbird–flower relationships. Oecologia 105: 517523.
  • Temeles, E.J., Linhart, Y.B., Masonjones, M. & Masonjones, H.D. 2002. The role of flower width in hummingbird bill length–flower length relationships. Biotropica 34: 6880.
  • Van Riper, W. 1958. Hummingbird feeding preferences. Auk 75: 100101.
  • Weast, R.C. & Astie, M.J. 1978. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 59th (1978–1979) ed. CRC Press Inc., West Palm Beach, FL.
  • Webb, C.O. & Donoghue, M.J. 2002. Phylomatic: A Database for Applied Phylogenetics [on line]. Available at: http://www.phylodiversity.net/phylomatic.
  • Wilson, P.W., Castellanos, M.C., Hogue, J.N., Thomson, J.N. & Armbruster, W.S. 2004. A multivariate search for pollination syndromes among penstemons. Oikos 104: 345361.
  • Wilson, P., Castellanos, M.C., Wolfe, A.D. & Thomson, J.D. 2006. Shifts between bee and bird pollination in penstemons. In: Plant–pollinator Interactions, from Specialization to Generalization (N. M. Waser & J. Ollerton, eds), pp. 4768. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  • Worley, A.C. & Barrett, S.C.H. 2000. Evolution of floral display in Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae): direct and correlated responses to selection on flower size and number. Evolution 54: 15331545.
  • Zimmerman, M. 1988. Nectar production, flowering phenology, and strategies for pollination. In: Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies (J. Lovett-Doust & L. Lovett-Doust, eds), pp. 157178. Oxford University Press, New York.