Pictures of the nine hummingbird species present in Chile. As most species exhibit a strong sexual dimorphism, males (left side) and females (right side) are displayed. Patagona gigas is considered to be monomorphic.

Download： Full Size Img PowerPoint

Pictures of the nine hummingbird species present in Chile. As most species exhibit a strong sexual dimorphism, males (left side) and females (right side) are displayed. Patagona gigas is considered to be monomorphic.

2022, 13(1): 100051.

Hummingbird-plant interactions in Chile: An ecological review of the available evidence .

Figures of the Article

Pictures of the nine hummingbird species present in Chile. As most species exhibit a strong sexual dimorphism, males (left side) and females (right side) are displayed. Patagona gigas is considered to be monomorphic.
Distribution maps of the nine hummingbird species present in continental and insular Chile.
Patterns of reciprocal dependence of Oreotrochilus leucopleurus, Patagona gigas, and Sephanoides sephaniodes, with the plant species they visit. Plant dependence (x-axis) represents the frequency with which a plant species receives visits from a hummingbird species relative to the total visits received. Values equal to one indicate the plant is visited only by the hummingbird species, indicating maximum specialization. Likewise, hummingbird dependence (y-axis) represents the frequency with which a hummingbird species includes a plant species as a food item relative to the total number of visits performed on plants. Values equal to 1 indicate the hummingbird species includes only one plant species in its diet, indicating maximum specialization for that plant (see Bascompte and Jordano, 2007 for details). Each point indicates simultaneously the dependence of plants by hummingbird species, and the dependence of hummingbirds by plant species.
(A) Bipartite metanetwork diagram showing the interaction between hummingbirds (upper orange boxes) and plants (lower green boxes). The width of boxes is proportional to the species' total interactions. Links are depicted of similar width as qualitative presence-absence data were used in the analysis. (B) Modular matrix version of the set of interactions showing six non-random patterns. Modularity differed significantly from a null model at P < 0.001. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.

Related articles

The role of sterile apices of Puya chilensis (Bromeliaceae) on the nectar-feeding behavior of passeriform birds in central Chile

2025, 16(1): 100267. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2025.100267
Birds’ co-occurrence is mediated by diet, habitat type, and anthropogenic disturbances in Ghana’s Central Region

2025, 16(1): 100251. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2025.100251
Phylogeography and morphometric variation in the Cinnamon Hummingbird complex: Amazilia rutila (Aves: Trochilidae)

2021, 12(1): 61. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00295-0
The flowerpiercers interactions with a community of high Andean plants

2021, 12(1): 22. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00256-7
Variation in abundance and habitat relationship of three understory insectivorous birds in a disturbed landscape of Neotropical dry forest of Colombia

2020, 11(1): 33. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00219-4
More endemic birds occur in regions with stable climate, more plant species and high altitudinal range in China

2020, 11(1): 17. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00203-y
Multi-species habitat models highlight the key importance of flooded reedbeds for inland wetland birds: implications for management and conservation

2019, 10(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0154-9
Conservation genetics of a resident population of Greylag Goose (Anser anser) at the southernmost limit of the species' distribution in Europe

2018, 9(1): 47. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0139-0
Bird functional traits affect seed dispersal patterns of China's endangered trees across different disturbed habitats

2018, 9(1): 13. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0105-x
Status of the Xinjiang Ground Jay: population, breeding ecology and conservation

2011, 2(1): 59-62. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2011.0007