Differences in the Costs and Benefits of Choosiness May Explain Variation in Cuckoo Egg-Matching Strategy: a Reply to Wang and Liang (2023)
Jinggang Zhang,Peter Santema,Zixuan Lin,Lixing Yang,Meijun Liu,Jianqiang Li,Wenhong Deng,Bart Kempenaers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1219
2023-01-01
Abstract:Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Zhang Jinggang, Santema Peter, Lin Zixuan, Yang Lixing, Liu Meijun, Li Jianqiang, Deng Wenhong and Kempenaers Bart 2023Differences in the costs and benefits of choosiness may explain variation in cuckoo egg-matching strategy: a reply to Wang and Liang (2023)Proc. R. Soc. B.2902023121920231219http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1219SectionSupplemental MaterialOpen AccessInvited replyDifferences in the costs and benefits of choosiness may explain variation in cuckoo egg-matching strategy: a reply to Wang and Liang (2023) Jinggang Zhang Jinggang Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-0429 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Peter Santema Peter Santema http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5765-3067 Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Contribution: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Zixuan Lin Zixuan Lin Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Lixing Yang Lixing Yang Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Academy of Forestry Inventory and Planning, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Meijun Liu Meijun Liu Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Jianqiang Li Jianqiang Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0029-1747 School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Wenhong Deng Wenhong Deng Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Bart Kempenaers Bart Kempenaers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7505-5458 Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany Contribution: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Jinggang Zhang Jinggang Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-0429 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Peter Santema Peter Santema http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5765-3067 Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Contribution: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Zixuan Lin Zixuan Lin Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Lixing Yang Lixing Yang Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Academy of Forestry Inventory and Planning, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Meijun Liu Meijun Liu Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Jianqiang Li Jianqiang Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0029-1747 School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, People's Republic of China Contribution: Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Wenhong Deng Wenhong Deng Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Contribution: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Bart Kempenaers Bart Kempenaers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7505-5458 Department of Ornithology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Seewiesen 82319, Germany Contribution: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:13 September 2023https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1219This article is commented on by the following:Article CommentaryRandom egg laying in host nests, rather than egg-matching, explains patterns of cuckoo parasitism: a comment on Zhang et al. (2023)https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1018 Longwu Wang and Wei Liang volume 290issue 2006Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences13 September 2023 Review history Review history is available via Web of Science at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1098/rspb.2023.1219 The arms race between avian brood parasites such as common cuckoos Cuculus canorus (hereafter 'cuckoos') and their hosts forms a classic model of coevolution [1]. An important defence mechanism of hosts is the rejection of the parasitic egg. In many host species, the probability of rejection is higher if the parasitic egg is more different in appearance from the host's own eggs [2,3]. Cuckoos would thus benefit from preferentially parasitizing nests in which the eggs are most similar to their own. However, despite these benefits, several factors may limit the ability of cuckoos to be selective and follow an egg-matching strategy. First, cuckoos also rely on speed and crypsis when laying an egg, because detection by the host might lead to physical attacks and increase the likelihood of egg rejection. Second, cuckoos may be unaware of the appearance of their own eggs. Evidence for the hypothesis that cuckoos use an egg-matching strategy is mixed [4–8], and whether cuckoos choose nests within a given host population based on egg matching remains an open question. Recently, we provided experimental evidence showing that cuckoos select host nests following an egg-matching strategy in a population of Daurian redstarts Phoenicurus auroreus [9]. Daurian redstarts show a distinct egg-colour dimorphism with females laying either blue or pink eggs, whereby the former are more similar to the pale blue eggs of cuckoos [3,9]. We showed that the natural parasitism rate was higher in blue than in pink host clutches, and that cuckoos almost always chose to parasitize a blue clutch when we experimentally presented a dummy clutch of each colour morph adjacent to active redstart nests [9]. In their comment [10], Wang & Liang question our conclusion and criticize the lack of direct video evidence. Here, we address these criticisms. Regarding the natural observed parasitism rate, Wang & Liang [10] argue that our result probably suffers from survivorship bias. Redstarts laying pink eggs are more likely to reject the cuckoo egg and they reject it more quickly [3,11]. Although we do not have precise data on the latency of egg rejection, we previously found that most rejectors ejected the parasitic egg within 24 h [11]. The observed lower frequency of a cuckoo egg in pink clutches may thus be explained not by cuckoos being selective, but by a higher probability that the cuckoo egg was rejected by the host before we had a chance to detect it. Thus, we agree that the natural parasitism rate may be underestimated more for pink than for blue clutches, and indeed we already made this argument in the original paper [9]. During previous artificial parasitism experiments, we sometimes found the cuckoo egg model that was rejected by the host on the ground near the nest (approx. 15% of the rejected egg models). We, therefore, also checked the ground surrounding the nest during daily nest visits to investigate the possibility that a cuckoo egg had been rejected by the host. However, in our study [9], we never found a cuckoo egg on the ground. Nevertheless, we agree with Wang & Liang that this lack of finding evidence for egg rejection does not exclude the possibility that cuckoo eggs were rejected by the host before detection. Precisely for this reason we conducted the cuckoo choice experiment. Regarding our experiment, Wang & Liang [10] raised two issues: (i) they suggest that cuckoo parasitism may have been underestimated in pink clutches due to survivorship bias (as for the natural parasitism rate) and (ii) they highlight the lack of direct video evidence for the process of cuckoo choosiness. Regarding the first point, we checked all three nests (of each experimental triplet) and the surrounding area for the presence of a cuckoo egg every morning and every afternoon, thereby maximizing the chance of detecting the cuckoo egg. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that a cuckoo egg had been ejected from an active nest before detection, and was not found on the ground, this argument does not apply to the dummy nests that were parasitized, unless the redstart host would have ejected the cuckoo egg from one of the dummy clutches, which seems highly unlikely. Considering only the dummy nests (i.e. disregarding experimental triplets in which the active nest had been parasitized), we now test whether the probability of cuckoo parasitism depends on clutch colour. We found 11 instances where a blue dummy clutch had been parasitized compared to only 1 instance where a pink clutch had been parasitized. Cuckoos were thus much more likely to lay an egg in a blue dummy clutch than in a pink dummy clutch (Fisher's exact test: p = 0.002), confirming our original conclusion that they select a clutch based on egg colour. Regarding the second point, we did in fact make video recordings at a subset of triplets of nests during the experiment and recorded cuckoo visits at two of those triplets. On both occasions, the female cuckoo checked multiple nests before laying an egg. In one case (electronic supplementary material, video S1), a female cuckoo first visited the dummy blue-egg nest (right) and removed one egg without parasitizing the nest. About 3 min later, the cuckoo came back and visited the dummy pink-egg nest (middle) without egg removal or laying. Later the same day, a cuckoo egg was found in the active blue-egg nest (left). Although we did not record the cuckoo laying the egg in the nest, we are confident that the cuckoo egg was from the same individual, because there was only one female cuckoo in this subplot of the study area (as discussed in [9]) and the egg had the same appearance as other cuckoo eggs found in this subplot. In the other case (electronic supplementary material, videos S2 and S3), a female cuckoo first visited the active pink-egg nest (top) and removed one egg without parasitizing the nest (electronic supplementary material, video S2). The cuckoo then visited the dummy pink-egg nest (middle), where it laid the parasitic egg and removed a host egg (electronic supplementary material, video S3). These videos provide direct evidence of the cuckoo's nest selection process, although, in the latter case, the cuckoo did not choose the blue-egg nest. Wang & Liang [10] highlight several studies to argue that cuckoos use a random egg-laying strategy. However, as they mention in their first paragraph, there are also multiple studies in support of the hypothesis that cuckoos use an egg-matching strategy [4–6], and several experimental studies support the hypothesis that cuckoo egg-laying is non-random with respect to nest features other than egg colour. However, Wang & Liang [10] do not mention or discuss these studies. For instance, Wang and colleagues found that cuckoos preferentially parasitize Oriental reed warbler Acrocephalus orientalis nests with a smaller number of eggs [12] or with a larger nest size [13]. Given the mixed evidence in the literature, we question Wang & Liang's implicit assumption that there should be a single answer to the question of whether cuckoos selectively parasitize nests based on egg appearance. We argue that cuckoo behaviour is likely to be influenced by the costs and benefits of being selective, which may vary across different cuckoo–host systems. For instance, the benefits of nest selection based on egg colour should be higher (i) when there is more variability in host egg appearance, such that some clutches clearly resemble cuckoo eggs more closely than others, and (ii) when host nest density is high, such that clutches with varying degree of matching are available to a single female cuckoo at a given time. In addition, the costs of being selective are likely to be lower in host species that do not show physical aggression towards cuckoos. In those systems, a female cuckoo may not have to quickly and secretively lay an egg. In the case of the Daurian redstart, all these conditions are met. (i) Host eggs display a distinct colour dimorphism and cuckoo eggs consistently resemble the blue, but not the pink morph, such that a female cuckoo can be selective even without knowing the appearance of her own eggs. (ii) Redstarts in our population breed at high density and synchronously, such that a female cuckoo typically has multiple potential host nests to choose from. (ii) Unlike in some other host species [14], redstarts do not engage in mobbing or physical attacks against cuckoos. We have never observed aggressive behaviour towards either a real cuckoo or a taxidermic model. Consequently, this host system probably exerts a stronger selective pressure on cuckoos to be choosy compared to other systems. In conclusion, we advocate for further research assessing the conditions that influence nest selection in cuckoos. Ethics All experimental procedures were conducted under license from the Animal Management Committee at the College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University (permit no. CLS-EAW-2018-001). Data accessibility The data are provided in electronic supplementary material [15]. Declaration of AI use We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article. Authors' contributions J.Z.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; P.S.: writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; Z.L.: writing—review and editing; L.Y.: writing—review and editing; M.L.: writing—review and editing; J.L.: writing—review and editing; W.D.: funding acquisition, supervision, writing—review and editing; B.K.: funding acquisition, supervision, writing—review and editing. All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein. Conflict of interest declaration We declare we have no competing interests. Funding This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 31672297 and 32271559 to W.D.) and the Max Planck Society (to B.K.). Acknowledgements We thank Longwu Wang and Wei Liang for opening this interesting debate. FootnotesThe accompanying Comment can be viewed at http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1018.Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6823036. © 2023 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.References1. Davies NB. 2000 Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. London, UK: T & AD Poyser. Google Scholar2. Yang C et al. 2010 Coevolution in action: disruptive selection on egg colour in an avian brood parasite and its host. PLoS ONE 5, e10816. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010816) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar3. Zhang J, Møller AP, Yan D, Li J, Deng W. 2021 Egg rejection changes with seasonal variation in risk of cuckoo parasitism in Daurian redstarts, Phoenicurus auroreus. Anim. Behav. 175, 193-200. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.007) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar4. Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Asmul M, Møller AP. 2006 Rapid increase in cuckoo egg matching in a recently parasitized reed warbler population. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1901-1910. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01166.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar5. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskat C. 2007 Do cuckoos choose nests of great reed warblers on the basis of host egg appearance? J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1218-1222. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01308.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar6. Honza M, Sulc M, Jelinek V, Pozgayova M, Prochazka P. 2014 Brood parasites lay eggs matching the appearance of host clutches. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132665. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2665) Link, ISI, Google Scholar7. Antonov A, Stokke BG, Fossøy F, Ranke PS, Liang W, Yang C, Moksnes A, Shykoff J, Røskaft E. 2012 Are cuckoos maximizing egg mimicry by selecting host individuals with better matching egg phenotypes? PLoS ONE 7, e31704. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031704) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar8. Yang C, Wang L, Liang W, Møller AP. 2016 Do common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) possess an optimal laying behaviour to match their own egg phenotype to that of their Oriental reed warbler (Acrocephalus orientalis) hosts? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 117, 422-427. (doi:10.1111/bij.12690) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar9. Zhang J, Santema P, Lin Z, Yang L, Liu M, Li J, Deng W, Kempenaers B. 2023 Experimental evidence that cuckoos choose host nests following an egg matching strategy. Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20222094. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2022.2094) Link, ISI, Google Scholar10. Wang L, Liang W. 2023 Random egg laying in host nests, rather than egg-matching, explains patterns of cuckoo parasitism: a comment on Zhang et al. (2023). Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20231018. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2023.1018) Link, Google Scholar11. Zhang J, Santema P, Li J, Feeney WE, Deng W, Kempenaers B. 2022 The mere presence of cuckoos in breeding area alters egg-ejection decisions in Daurian redstarts. Behav. Ecol. 33, 1153-1160. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arac084) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar12. Wang L, Yang C, He G, Liang W, Møller AP. 2020 Cuckoos use host egg number to choose host nests for parasitism. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200343. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.0343) Link, ISI, Google Scholar13. Wang L, He G, Yang C, Møller A, Liang W. 2022 Nest size matters: common cuckoos prefer to parasitize larger nests of Oriental reed warblers. Anim. Cogn. 25, 589-595. (doi:10.1007/s10071-021-01574-5) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar14. Zhao H, Luo H, Yan H, He G, Wang L, Liang W. 2022 Fatal mobbing and attack of the common cuckoo by its warbler hosts. Ecol. Evol. 12, e9649. (doi:10.1002/ece3.9649) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar15. Zhang J, Santema P, Lin Z, Yang L, Liu M, Li J, Deng W, Kempenaers B. 2023 Differences in the costs and benefits of choosiness may explain variation in cuckoo egg-matching strategy: a reply to Wang and Liang (2023). Figshare. (doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6823036) Google Scholar Previous Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsRelated articlesRandom egg laying in host nests, rather than egg-matching, explains patterns of cuckoo parasitism: a comment on Zhang et al. (2023)13 September 2023Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This Issue13 September 2023Volume 290Issue 2006 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1219PubMed:37700659Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received01/06/2023Manuscript accepted18/08/2023Published online13/09/2023 License:© 2023 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsbehaviour Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad