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

Abstract:You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Yang Canchao, Liang Wei and Møller Anders P. 2019Similar immediate costs of raising cuckoo and host chicks can hardly explain low levels of antiparasite defence in hosts. A Comment on: Samaš et al. (2018)Proc. R. Soc. B.2862018243020182430http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2430SectionYou have accessCommentSimilar immediate costs of raising cuckoo and host chicks can hardly explain low levels of antiparasite defence in hosts. A Comment on: Samaš et al. (2018) Canchao Yang Canchao Yang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9405-2749 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, People's Republic of China Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Wei Liang Wei Liang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-9707 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, People's Republic of China [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Anders P. Møller Anders P. Møller http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3739-4675 Laboratoire d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Bâtiment 362, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Canchao Yang Canchao Yang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9405-2749 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, People's Republic of China Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Wei Liang Wei Liang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-9707 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, People's Republic of China [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Anders P. Møller Anders P. Møller http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3739-4675 Laboratoire d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Bâtiment 362, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:30 October 2019https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2430Interactions between parasitic cuckoos and their hosts constitute a text-book example for understanding coevolution in nature [1,2]. Coevolution occurs because cuckoos transfer parental costs to their hosts while hosts lose some or all of their progeny while raising genetically unrelated individuals. Such costs select for the evolution of antiparasitic defences in hosts, which further increases cuckoo trickery [2,3]. It is generally accepted that hosts pay more parental care to rear cuckoo chicks than rearing their own offspring. Although numerous empirical studies have investigated the coevolution of cuckoos and hosts [2], such immediate costs for hosts have rarely been quantified [4]. Moreover, studies that quantified the immediate costs only focused on part of the breeding stage (i.e. the nestling stage), whereas the costs of the fledgling stage are so far not quantified [4]. Recently, Samaš et al. [4] for the first time measured and quantified the immediate costs of rearing a cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) chick across all developmental stages of its redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus) host [4]. Contrary to traditional assumptions, they found that raising a cuckoo chick per se was not associated with overall higher costs to hosts above the natural levels of cost of raising their own chicks. They concluded that the low cuckoo-rearing costs imposed on hosts may partly explain the negligible antiparasite defence in redstarts, which is commonly exploited by cuckoos (with approx. 30% parasitism rate). This novel study has contributed to fill the gap of how to quantify costs during the fledgling stage. However, this conclusion can hardly explain the low levels of antiparasitic defence in hosts for the reasons discussed below.Firstly, although a traditional statement is that ‘parasitized hosts suffer high costs by providing more parental care for the cuckoo than for their own offspring’ [5, p. 322] ‘because they are rearing genetically unrelated individuals' [6, p. 911; 7, p. 569], the key costs that select for the evolution of antiparasitic defences in hosts is ‘rearing genetically unrelated individuals’ rather than ‘more parental care’ because it should be the ‘failure of transmission of genes in hosts' rather than the ‘excessive parental care compared to that provided for the host's own chicks’ that drives the evolution of antiparasitic adaptation in hosts. Host individuals that are successfully parasitized by cuckoos lose their reproductive output and thus fail to pass their genes onto the next generation. Natural selection favours individuals that possess greater defence against cuckoo parasites than others because these individuals have more offspring and superior transmission of genes [8,9]. To test our argument, we suggest that the use of mathematical models may help elucidate the evolution of host defences by simulating and comparing the costs of raising a cuckoo and host nestlings, while simultaneously considering the transmission of genes.Secondly, even if the immediate costs of rearing a cuckoo chick do not exist, parasitism itself should be sufficient to promote antiparasitic defences in hosts. This situation is similar to the case of nest predation because nest predators impose no immediate cost on bird parents (i.e. nest predators that only depredate nests), although the high cost of reproductive loss has driven significant evolution in prey (e.g. camouflaged eggs, concealed nests, etc.) [10]. The effect of cuckoo parasitism itself is similar to that of predation because it eliminates some or all host progeny. In addition, parasitism and predation are positively correlated [11]. Nevertheless, for depredated nests, bird parents can immediately engage in a new reproductive cycle. By contrast, for parasitized nests, host parents sacrifice their own reproductive effort for rearing cuckoo chicks. From this point of view, the cost of parasitism is larger than that of nest predation, and thus antiparasitic defences should still evolve to a level that is equal to or stronger than antipredator defences. To explicitly test our argument, we suggest that the use of mathematical models to illustrate the roles of brood parasitism and nest predation in the evolution of host defences may be achieved by simulating and comparing the costs of brood parasitism and nest predation.Finally, the relative costs of rearing a cuckoo chick and a host's own chick cannot explain why antiparasitic defences are absent. As known from nature, countless animals pay dramatically high costs, or even sacrifice their lives, to take care their own progeny because all contributions they make aim to pass on their genes from one generation to the next [12]. Such contributions (or costs) are necessary, logical, worthy and reasonable because they are favoured by natural selection. They are totally different from the costs imposed from rearing genetically unrelated cuckoo chicks. In other words, comparison of the costs of rearing own progeny and cuckoo chicks on the basis of the benefits of the host are not commeasurable without considering the genetic background. It is logical and reasonable that for iteroparous hosts, those that suffer higher costs of rearing a parasite gains less fitness than those that suffer the lower cost of rearing parasites. However, the key conclusion of Samaš et al. [4] was that rearing the parasite per se was not associated with overall higher costs to hosts above the natural levels imposed by efforts to rear their own progeny, and this in part explains the low levels of known host counter-defences in hosts. The problem here is that Samaš et al. [4] compared the costs of rearing the parasite with that of rearing the host's own progeny rather than comparing the higher cost of rearing a parasite with the lower cost of rearing a parasite. The latter is comparable but the former is not for drawing conclusions about host defences, even though the paper used a cautious language ‘in part’ for its conclusion. For iteroparous hosts, the trade-off between current and future reproductive effort is tenable because both of them are beneficial for their transmission of genes, and thus, in other words, they trade current benefits against future benefits of rearing their own offspring to achieve an optimal fitness for the entire lifespan. However, hosts should not trade current or future reproductive effort from rearing their own offspring against that of rearing a parasite because the latter is not beneficial for the host [3].The low levels of known counter-defences, but unusually frequent parasitism in the common redstart P. phoenicurus have been puzzling scientists for a long time, and we appreciate that Samaš et al. [4] have tried to explain these by their empirical study. With respect to our first argument, although it is true that rearing genetically unrelated individuals constitutes a strong selection pressure for host defences to evolve, we could deduce that in rearing a parasitic nestling, the higher costs could even decrease the duration of the reproductive lifespan of hosts, suggesting a stronger selective pressure on the evolution of host defences, which could increase the speed of evolutionary change. Therefore, low speed of evolution in host defences with the addition of the possibility that the redstart may be a recent host species of the common cuckoo, because it is a cavity-nesting host species [2], may together contribute to explain the low levels of counter-defences [4], and the unusually frequent cases of parasitism in the common redstart. However, as we have argued above, the results in Samaš et al. [4] cannot be used for drawing a conclusion for low levels of defence in the redstart because it was based on an invalid comparison. The higher costs we discussed here as alternative explanations refer to a comparison within a framework of rearing a parasite, and not a comparison between rearing a parasite and the host's own offspring.In our opinion, if we focus on parental care, three possible lines of further research may help to explain the low levels of antiparasitic defences in hosts by (i) comparing the costs of rearing a parasite among different populations of the same host species to assess whether low costs are correlated with lower host defences, (ii) using meta-analysis while controlling for phylogenetic relationships among a large number of host species to investigate the possible correlation between the intensity of costs of rearing parasites and the level of antiparasitic defences in hosts, or (iii) development of mathematical models to simulate the relationship between the intensity of cost of rearing a parasite and the level of antiparasitic defences in hosts based on empirical data.In summary, we argue that the conclusion that low levels of antiparasitic defence in hosts as an explanation for similar immediate costs of raising cuckoo or host chicks is simply not valid. However, we also emphasize that this study is valuable by allowing us to better understand the interaction at the fledgling stage between cuckoos and their hosts.Data accessibilityThis article has no additional data.Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.FundingFinancial support has been provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos 31672303 to C.Y. and 31772453 to W.L.)AcknowledgmentsWe thank Tomáš Grim and another three referees for their useful and constructive comments on this manuscript.FootnotesThe accompanying reply can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1690.© 2019 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.References1. Davies NB. 2011Cuckoo adaptations: trickery and tuning. J. Zool. 284, 1-14. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00810.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar2. Soler M. 2014Long-term coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Biol. Rev. 89, 688-704. (doi:10.1111/brv.12075) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar3. Davies NB. 2000Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. London, UK: T. & A. D. Poyser. Google Scholar4. Samaš P, Rutila J, Honza M, Kysučan M, Grim T. 2018Rearing a virulent common cuckoo is not extra costly for its only cavity-nesting host. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181710. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.1710) Link, ISI, Google Scholar5. Grim T, Honza M. 2001Does supernormal stimulus influence parental behavior of the cuckoo's host? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49, 322-329. (doi:10.1007/s002650000295) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar6. Corroll RL. 2002Evolution of the capacity to evolve. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 911-921. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00455.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar7. Kilner RM. 2003How selfish is a cowbird nestling? Anim. Behav. 66, 569-576. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2204) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar8. Darwin C. 1859On the origin of species. London, UK: John Murray. Google Scholar9. Dawkins R. 1976The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar10. Kilner RM. 2006The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol. Rev. 81, 383-406. (doi:10.1017/S1464793106007044) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar11. Møller AP, Stokke BG, Diogo SM, Samia DSM. 2015Hawk models, hawk mimics, and antipredator behavior of prey. Behav. Ecol. 26, 1039-1044. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arv043) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar12. Davies NB, Krebs JR, West SA. 2012An introduction to behavioral ecology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited bySamaš P, Kysučan M, Honza M and Grim T (2019) Multiple costs are relevant for evolution of host anti-parasite defences. Reply to Yang C et al. (2018)., Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286:1914, Online publication date: 6-Nov-2019. This Issue06 November 2019Volume 286Issue 1914 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2430PubMed:31662086Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received27/10/2018Manuscript accepted12/12/2018Published online30/10/2019Published in print06/11/2019 License:© 2019 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Citations and impact Subjectsbehaviourevolution Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad

Differences in the Costs and Benefits of Choosiness May Explain Variation in Cuckoo Egg-Matching Strategy: a Reply to Wang and Liang (2023)

Random Egg Laying in Host Nests, Rather Than Egg-Matching, Explains Patterns of Cuckoo Parasitism: a Comment on Zhang Et Al. (2023).

Why Cuckoos Should Parasitize Parrotbills by Laying Eggs Randomly Rather Than Laying Eggs Matching the Egg Appearance of Parrotbill Hosts

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

Egg Recognition As Antiparasitism Defence in Hosts Does Not Select for Laying of Matching Eggs in Parasitic Cuckoos

Are Cuckoos Maximizing Egg Mimicry by Selecting Host Individuals with Better Matching Egg Phenotypes?

Plaintive Cuckoos Do Not Select Tailorbird Hosts That Match the Phenotypes of Their Own Eggs

Egg mimicry and host selection by common cuckoos among four sympatric host species breeding within a reed habitat

How Cuckoos Find and Choose Host Nests for Parasitism

Similar Immediate Costs of Raising Cuckoo and Host Chicks Can Hardly Explain Low Levels of Antiparasite Defence in Hosts. A Comment On: Samaš Et Al. (2018)

Experimental Evidence That Cuckoos Choose Host Nests Following an Egg Matching Strategy

Do Cuckoos Imprint on Hosts, Micro-Habitats, or Nest Sites? Parasitism Preferences in the Common Cuckoo ( Cuculus Canorus )

Experimental Evidence That Cuckoos Preferentially Parasitize Host Nests Early in Their Laying Cycle

Common Cuckoo Females Remove More Conspicuous Eggs During Parasitism

Empirical Evidence of Coevolution Between the Channel-Billed Cuckoo and Its Host, the Pied Currawong

Cryptic Eggs Are Rejected Less Frequently by a Cuckoo Host

Costs of Breeding Far Away from Neighbors: Isolated Host Nests Are More Vulnerable to Cuckoo Parasitism

Modeling the Cuckoo’s Brood Parasitic Behavior in the Presence of Egg Polymorphism

Egg Rejection Based on Egg Size Recognition As a Specific Strategy Against Parasitic Cuckoos

Cuckoos Use Host Egg Number to Choose Host Nests for Parasitism.

Can nest design hinder brood parasitism success?