QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Altshuler, D. L. Articles by Dudley, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Altshuler, D. L. Articles by Dudley, R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology

Douglas L. Altshuler^1,* and Robert Dudley^1,2

¹ Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
² Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, PO Box 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The relationship between heart mass (g) and body mass (g) for hummingbirds: (A) raw species data (y=0.02x+0.01, r2=0.93, P<0.0001); (B) independent contrasts (y=0.957x, r2=0.79, P<0.0001). The regression using independent contrasts is forced through the origin (Garland et al., 1992). The phylogenetic hypothesis used to calculate independent contrasts contains 73 hummingbird taxa and was generated using Bayesian phylogenetic analysis (Larget and Simon, 1999; Huelsenbeck and Ronquist, 2001). Two nuclear genes (AK1, ND2) and one mitochondrial gene (Beta-fibrinogen) were sequenced and analysed using a general time-reversible (GTR) plus site-specific gamma model of evolution (J. A. McGuire and D. L. Altshuler, unpublished data).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Body mass (columns) and number of species (crosses) for averaged minimum and maximum elevations among hummingbird species. Data were derived from Schuchmann (1999). Percentage reduction in oxygen partial pressure (PO2)/air density is also indicated.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The major lineages of hummingbirds as determined using DNA-DNA hybridization (Bleiweiss et al., 1994, 1997) and corroborated using sequences from one mitochondrial and two nuclear genes (J. A. McGuire and D. L. Altshuler, unpublished data). Mapped onto the phylogeny are the means of the midpoints of elevation ranges (from Schuchmann, 1999) for all taxa whose genera have been included in either phylogenetic analysis.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The relationship between flight muscle mass (g) and body mass (g) for hummingbirds: (A) raw species data (y=0.34x+0.39, r2=0.94, P<0.0001); (B) independent contrasts (y=1.25x, r2=0.73, P<0.0001). The regression using independent contrasts is forced through the origin (Garland et al., 1992). The phylogenetic hypothesis used for this analysis is the same as for Fig. 1.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The relationship between wing loading (kg m-2) and elevation (m) for hummingbirds: (A) means of raw species data (y=-0.002x+26, r2=0.196, P=0.003); (B) independent contrasts (y=-0.11x; r2=0.18, P=0.04). The regression using independent contrasts in forced through the origin (Garland et al., 1992). The phylogenetic hypothesis used for this analysis is the same as for Fig. 1.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter