Body mass as a supertrait linked to abundance and behavioral dominance in hummingbirds: A phylogenetic approach

Abstract

Body mass has been considered one of the most critical organismal traits, and its role in many ecological processes has been widely studied. In hummingbirds, body mass has been linked to ecological features such as foraging performance, metabolic rates, and cost of flying, among others. We used an evolutionary approach to test whether body mass is a good predictor of two of the main ecological features of hummingbirds: their abundances and behavioral dominance. To determine whether a species was abundant and/or behaviorally dominant, we used information from the literature on 249 hummingbird species. For abundance, we classified a species as “plentiful” if it was described as the most abundant species in at least part of its geographic distribution, while we deemed a species to be “behaviorally dominant” when it was described as pugnacious (notably aggressive). We found that plentiful hummingbird species had intermediate body masses and were more phylogenetically related to each other than expected by chance. Conversely, behaviorally dominant species tended to have larger body masses and showed a random pattern of distribution in the phylogeny. Additionally, small‐bodied hummingbird species were not considered plentiful by our definition and did not exhibit behavioral dominance. These results suggest a link between body mass, abundance, and behavioral dominance in hummingbirds. Our findings indicate the existence of a body mass range associated with the capacity of hummingbird species to be plentiful, behaviorally dominant, or to show both traits. The mechanisms behind these relationships are still unclear; however, our results provide support for the hypothesis that body mass is a supertrait that explains abundance and behavioral dominance in hummingbirds.

Body mass and latitude predict the presence of multiple stressors in global vertebrate populations

“…Here, body mass holds some promise; labelled a 'supertrait' (Bribiesca et al 2019) due to its role in numerous ecological processes, wide availability, and universality, it provides a convenient tool enabling direct comparison between taxa. Further linked with an increased vulnerability to strong population decline (Deinet et al 2020) and extinction, body mass has also been suggested as a potential predeterminant of stressor exposure (Collen et al 2011).…”

All Sizes Fit the Red Queen

“…Not surprisingly, body size has been portrayed as one of the most direct links between microevolution and macroevolution (Maurer et al 1992; Jablonski 1996). Indeed, almost inevitably, different body sizes will carry competitive advantages in different ecological circumstances (Brown and Maurer 1986; Woodward et al 2005; White et al 2007; Bribiesca et al 2019). A widely debated but still open question is whether any particular body sizes carry universal competitive advantages across all possible ecologies.…”

Coexistence among morphologically similar hummingbird species is promoted via density compensation in a Mexican temperate forest

“…Overall, resource partitioning among hummingbirds has been explained by different mechanisms related to differences in the use of nectar (Justino, Maruyama, & Oliveira, 2012;Lyon, 1976), which include variation in foraging behavior (Feinsinger & Colwell, 1978;Lara, Lumbreras, & González, 2009;Sandlin, 2000;Stiles, 1985), population movements at the landscape scale following the phenology of their plants (Buzato, Sazima, & Sazima, 2000;Des Granges, 1979;Ortiz-Pulido & Vargas-Licona, 2008), microhabitat differences (Kodric- Brown, Brown, Byers, & Gori, 1984;Ritchie, 2002), spatiotemporal segregation in resource use (Lara, 2006;Lara et al, 2011;Ornelas et al, 2002), and phylogenetic distance between species (Márquez-Luna et al, 2018;Martin & Ghalambor, 2014). Likewise, it has been proposed that interspecific morphological variations in traits, such as body size and bill length and curvature, play an important role in this resource partitioning (Bribiesca, Herrera-Alsina, Ruiz-Sánchez, Sánchez-González, & Schondube, 2019;López-Segoviano, Bribiesca, & Arizmend, 2018;Lyon, 1976;Maglianesi, Bohning-Gaese, & Schleuning, 2015;Rodríguez-Flores & Stiles, 2005;Snow & Snow, 1980;Stiles, 1975). Thus, several of these coexistence mechanisms are based on the behavioral, morphological, and physiological capability of hummingbirds to exploit such a heterogeneous spatio-temporal resource as nectar (Bacon, Hurly, & Healy, 2011;Ritchie, 2002).…”