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
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Can nest design hinder brood parasitism success?
Angela Moreras,Jere Tolvanen,Michal Kysučan,Peter Samaš,Tomáš Grim,Robert L. Thomson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.03300
2024-08-19
Journal of Avian Biology
Abstract:Avian nest design varies depending on environmental factors but may also be influenced by between‐species interactions. In the brood parasitism context, hosts may evolve nest architectures that may limit parasite access to the nest cup, reduce parasite laying success or hinder parasite chick success. Therefore, nest characteristics may reduce the likelihood or minimise the costs of being parasitised. The common redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus is a regular host of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus, for which cuckoo eggs are often laid outside the nest cup, resulting in low effective parasitism rates. This allowed us to evaluate variation in host nest design and test whether nest design characteristics correlate with brood parasitism likelihood and cuckoo laying success (i.e. cuckoo egg laid in the nest cup versus outside the nest cup). While recording brood parasitism events in two distant redstart populations, we documented nest cup characteristics, such as internal dimensions, materials used and nest cup position, along with the nest‐box dimensions. Cuckoo parasitism likelihood was lower for redstart nests in cavities with smaller entrances, for redstart nests with smaller nest cups and with nest cups that were built level to the rim material. For parasitised nests, cuckoo laying success was lower at redstart nests with nest cups placed further from the cavity entrance. Our results suggest a conditional process, where the cavity entrance size first prevents brood parasites access, then the cup size and the cup level in reference to the rim material affect the cuckoo choice, and finally, the nest cup position hinders cuckoo's laying success. The use of multiple nest design strategies may explain the current low effective parasitism rates in this system. Host nest design may serve as a frontline defence that could shape parasite's preferences, and consequently host nest characteristics.
ornithology
-
Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird's eye
Mary Caswell Stoddard,Martin Stevens
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2018
2010-01-06
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Abstract:Cuckoo–host interactions provide classical examples of coevolution. Cuckoos place hosts under selection to detect and reject foreign eggs, while host defences result in the evolution of host-egg mimicry in cuckoos. Despite a long history of research, egg pattern mimicry has never been objectively quantified, and so its coevolution with host defences has not been properly assessed. Here, we use digital image analysis and modelling of avian vision to quantify the level of pattern mimicry in eight host species of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and their respective cuckoo host-races. We measure a range of pattern attributes, including marking size, diversity in size, contrast, coverage and dispersion. This new technique reveals hitherto unnoticed sophistication in egg pattern mimicry. We show that various features of host egg pattern are mimicked by the eggs of their respective cuckoo host-races, and that cuckoos have evolved better pattern mimicry for host species that exhibit stronger egg rejection. Pattern differs relatively more between eggs of different host species than between their respective cuckoo host-races. We suggest that cuckoos may have more ‘average’ markings in order to be able to use subsidiary hosts. Our study sheds new light on cuckoo–host coevolution and illustrates a new technique for quantifying animal markings with respect to the relevant animal visual system.
-
Seasonal increase in nest defense, but not egg rejection, in a cuckoo host
Bo Zhou,Wei Liang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100154
IF: 2.043
2024-01-01
Avian Research
Abstract:The interactions between avian brood parasites and their hosts provide an informative and easy-to-handle system for studying coevolution. Avian brood parasitism reduces the reproductive success of hosts, and thus, hosts have evolved anti-parasitic strategies, such as rejecting parasitic eggs and adopting aggressive nest defense strategies, to avoid the cost brought on by brood parasitism. To test whether host anti-parasitic strategies are adjusted with the risk of being parasitized when the breeding seasons of brood parasites and hosts are not synchronous, we conducted a field experiment assessing nest defense and egg recognition behaviors of the Isabelline Shrike ( Lanius isabellinus ), a host of the Common Cuckoo ( Cuculus canorus ). In the local area, the host Isabelline Shrike begins to breed in April, whereas the summer migratory Common Cuckoo migrates to the local area in May and begins to lay parasitic eggs. Results showed that nest defense behaviors of the Isabelline Shrike increases significantly after cuckoo arrival, showing higher aggressiveness to cuckoo dummies, with no significant difference in attack rates among cuckoo, sparrowhawk and dove dummies, but their egg rejection did not change significantly. These results imply that Isabelline Shrikes may adjust their nest defense behavior, but not egg rejection behavior, with seasonality.
ornithology
-
Defense behavior of two closely related but geographically distant host species against cuckoo parasitism: A next test for the parallel coevolution
Alfréd Trnka,Laikun Ma,Hanlin Yan,Longwu Wang,Wei Liang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10175
2023-06-09
Abstract:Interactions between avian brood parasites, such as common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus), and their hosts are one of the best-studied examples of the coevolutionary arms race. Different stages of this arms race can be seen in different races of common cuckoos and their hosts across their range. However, little is known whether selected populations of two closely related but geographically distant species with probably different coevolutionary histories with the common cuckoo are also at different stages of the arms race. In this study, we tested this prediction experimentally using the same non-mimetic model eggs and three-dimensional (3D) printed models of the gray adult common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). We examined egg recognition and egg rejection and aggression against the common cuckoo in the great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) and Oriental reed warbler (Acrocephalus orientalis), in Slovakia of Europe and northeast China of Asia. The results showed that the great reed warbler exhibited stronger responses to experimental model eggs and 3D models of the common cuckoo than the Oriental reed warbler. We conclude that both the great reed warbler and Oriental reed warbler have well-developed antiparasitic behaviors against common cuckoos in the studied populations, but with different levels of defense intensity, which may be due to local differences in parasitic pressure and the risk of parasitism. This provides an opportunity to study coevolutionary processes between the brood parasite and its hosts together in both species at large geographical scales.
-
Common cuckoo female host selection is not determined by host quality but can affect cuckoo nestling growth when parasitising Common redstarts
Teresa Abaurrea,Angela Moreras,Jere Tolvanen,Robert L. Thomson,Rose Thorogood
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.11.583276
2024-03-13
Abstract:Common cuckoo ( ) females lay their eggs in the nests of other avian hosts, relying on parental care provided by parasitised hosts. Therefore, it would benefit cuckoo females to target high-quality individual hosts, able to provide optimal parental care. Attempts at testing cuckoo female host selection have so far shown mixed results. However, this might be because studies have rarely considered the host nests that are available in space and time during each cuckoo egg-laying event, as well as the implications of host choice on the cuckoo nestling growth. Here we combined long-term monitoring data with an experiment to test whether cuckoo females parasitising Common redstarts ( ) target individual hosts to optimise their nestlingś growth. Making use of data collected between 2013 and 2022 from 350+ nest boxes in Oulu (Finland), we first explored whether there is a range of available host nests for the cuckoo female to choose from. Second, we tested if hosts are targeted according to individual quality (using clutch size as a proxy). And third, we investigated the outcomes of cuckoo female host-selection on nestling growth (mass, tarsus length, and wing length) between 2014 and 2019. We conducted a cross-fostering experiment where we either left cuckoo eggs to hatch and be raised in the nest their mother originally chose for them or moved cuckoo eggs to non-parasitised nests. Additionally, we conducted an exploratory analysis to test the quality of the parents caring for the cross-fostered cuckoo nestlings. After accounting for how many host nests were available to the cuckoo female to choose from, we found that nests with bigger clutches were not more likely to be parasitised, and cross-fostering did not affect mass and tarsus length growth. However, both in the wing length growth and in our exploratory analysis of host parental care on cuckoo nestling growth we found that cuckoo nestlings that grew in the nest selected by their mothers, reached higher asymptotic growth at a slower rate. This suggests that while cuckoos may not choose redstart hosts based on their individual quality when parasitising common redstarts, cuckoo female host selection might improve cuckoo nestling growth and thus, have an adaptive significance.
Animal Behavior and Cognition
-
Brood parasitism and host-parasite relationships: Cuckoos adapt to reduce the time of hatching ahead of host nestlings by increasing egg thickness
Valeriy G Narushin,Michael N Romanov,Nili Avni-Magen,Darren K Griffin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2024.100979
2024-08-26
Abstract:The phenomenon of cuckoos' brood parasitism is well known and can be investigated using applied mathematical techniques. Among adaptive features of this phenomenon are certain egg parameters that ensure their shortened incubation period (I) and thus the successful survival of their offspring. In particular, the volume of a cuckoo egg is not less than, or exceeds, that of the host species, which should, in theory, increase I. Also, cuckoo eggs have thicker shell than that of nest hosts. Here, we analyzed the available geometric dimensions of eggs in 447 species and found an inverse correlation (-0.585, p < 0.05) between I and the shell thickness-to-egg surface area ratio (T/S). A mathematical relationship was derived to calculate I depending on T/S. This premise was confirmed by comparative calculations using egg images of two parasitic species, common (Cuculus canorus) and plaintive cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus) and their hosts: great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), European robin (Erithacus rubecula), rufescent prinia (Prinia rufescens), and common tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius). An average calculated I value for cuckoo eggs was one day less than that for host eggs. Our findings unravel additional details of how cuckoos adapt to brood parasitism and specific host-parasite relationships.
-
Egg rejection changes with seasonal variation in risk of cuckoo parasitism in Daurian redstarts, Phoenicurus auroreus
Jinggang Zhang,Anders Pape Møller,Denghui Yan,Jianqiang Li,Wenhong Deng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.007
IF: 3.041
2021-05-01
Animal Behaviour
Abstract:<p>Egg rejection behaviour is a host strategy adopted by birds against brood parasitism. The optimal acceptance threshold hypothesis predicts that, when the frequency or risk of parasitism increases, host acceptance thresholds should become more restrictive. Here, we investigated egg rejection behaviour in the Daurian redstart, a cavity-nesting host of the common cuckoo, <em>Cuculus canorus</em>. In a Daurian redstart population located in the northern cold-temperate zone of China where redstarts have two peaks of egg laying during the breeding season, cuckoos can only parasitize redstart nests during the second egg-laying peak due to their late arrival on the breeding grounds. We artificially simulated brood parasitism by introducing a model cuckoo egg into a redstart nest during both egg-laying peaks to test the prediction that redstarts should reject eggs at a greater rate during the second than the first egg-laying peak. In accordance with the optimal acceptance threshold hypothesis, Daurian redstarts showed significantly higher egg rejection rates during the second egg-laying peak. This result indicates that temporal variation in egg rejection behaviour by Daurian redstarts may be an adaptive response to seasonal change in risk of cuckoo parasitism. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing that the egg rejection rate of a host population increases with increasing risk of cuckoo parasitism within a breeding seas.</p>
zoology,behavioral sciences
-
Dynamics of evolutionary succession and coordination between opposite adaptations in cuckoo hosts under antagonistic coevolution
Canchao Yang,Ziqi Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06105-9
IF: 6.548
2024-04-04
Communications Biology
Abstract:Adaptations are driven by specific natural selection pressures throughout biological evolution. However, these cannot inherently align with future shifts in selection dynamics, thus manifesting in opposing directions. We performed field experiments on cuckoo hosts to investigate the coexistence and conflict between two evolutionarily successive but opposing behavioral adaptations—egg retrieval and rejection. Our findings provide key insights. (1) Egg rejection against brood parasites in hosts reshapes egg retrieval to flexible reactions—retrieval, ignoring, or outright rejection of foreign eggs outside the nest cup, departing from instinctual retrieval. (2) Parasitism pressure and egg mimicry by parasites remarkably alter the proportions of the three host reactions. Host species with higher parasitism pressure exhibit frequent and rapid rejection of non-mimetic foreign eggs and reduced ignoring or retrieval responses. Conversely, heightened egg mimicry enhances retrieval behaviors while diminishing ignoring responses. (3) Cuckoos employ consistent mechanisms for rejecting foreign eggs inside or outside the nest cup. Direct rejection of eggs outside the nest cup shows that rejection precedes retrieval, indicating prioritization of specific adaptation over instinct. (4) Cuckoo hosts navigate the conflict between the intentions and motivations associated with egg rejection and retrieval by ignoring foreign eggs, a specific outcome of the rejection–retrieval tradeoff.
biology
-
Host nest defence does not act as selective agent against plumage polymorphism in brood parasites
Marcel Honza,Gabriela Štětková,Milica Požgayová,Peter Samaš
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1135
2024-11-17
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Abstract:Batesian mimicry in brood parasites is often viewed as an evolutionary strategy to mitigate host aggression. Female common cuckoos ( Cuculus canorus ) exhibit two morphs: the hawk-like grey and the rufous one, potentially maintained by apostatic selection. It was hypothesized that the grey morph’s predator-like appearance deters host defences, while the rufous morph benefits from its rarity by evading host attention. Previous research predominantly utilized static cuckoo dummies, lacking insights into real-world interactions. We investigated the effectiveness of the cuckoo morphs in accessing great reed warbler ( Acrocephalus arundinaceus ) nests under natural conditions. Analysing video-recorded cuckoo attempts, we found no significant difference in nest-access success between the morphs. Both experienced a similar probability of physical attacks when hosts were present, and the rufous morph did not evade host detection more often compared with the grey morph. These results fail to support the assumptions of (a) Batesian mimicry, that hawk-like mimicry enhances nest access or reduces host aggression, and (b) apostatic selection, that the rarity of the rufous morph confers an advantage in successfully accessing the host nest. Future research should aim to identify stages in the cuckoo’s life cycle or host interactions where colour polymorphism provides an evolutionary benefit.
ecology,evolutionary biology,biology
-
Brood parasitism and egg recognition in three bunting hosts of the cuckoos
Yuhan Zhang,Guo Zhong,Guixia Wan,Longwu Wang,Wei Liang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10659
IF: 3.167
2023-10-22
Ecology and Evolution
Abstract:We provided the first report on brood parasitism and egg recognition in three sympatric ground‐nesting bunting hosts of the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), namely the yellow‐throated bunting (Emberiza elegans), south rock bunting (Emberiza yunnanensis), and crested bunting (Emberiza lathami). The results show that for the five breeding seasons during 2018–2022, the parasitism rate by common cuckoos was 0.87% and 0.45% in yellow‐throated buntings and south rock buntings, respectively, whereas the crested bunting was not found to be parasitised. All three sympatric bunting hosts examined had high levels of egg recognition and egg rejection, suggesting a long history of coevolution with cuckoos. Comparative studies of egg recognition and rejection between various sympatric hosts provide insight into the coevolutionary history of the hosts and parasites, as well as the degree of antagonism between the species. Although buntings are widely considered to be a suitable host taxon for cuckoos, there has been relatively little research on this example of parasitism and host antiparasitic behaviour. Here we provided the first report on brood parasitism and egg recognition in three sympatric ground‐nesting bunting hosts of the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), namely the yellow‐throated bunting (Emberiza elegans), south rock bunting (E. yunnanensis), and crested bunting (E. lathami). The results show that for the five breeding seasons during 2018–2022, the parasitism rate by common cuckoos was 0.87% and 0.45% in yellow‐throated buntings and south rock buntings, respectively, whereas the parasitism rate by an unidentified parasite was 4% during 2018–2023 in the crested bunting. The rejection rates of the three bunting hosts for blue non‐mimetic eggs were 89.3%, 88.9%, and 100% for yellow‐throated buntings, south rock buntings, and crested buntings, respectively. The rejection rates for red non‐mimetic eggs by yellow‐throated buntings and south rock buntings were lower at 76.9% and 82.4%, respectively. All three sympatric bunting hosts examined had high levels of egg recognition and egg rejection, suggesting that it may have been subjected to high parasitic history and that egg recognition ability was retained after the loss of parasitism, which needs to be further verified by future experiments.
ecology,evolutionary biology
-
When perfection isn't enough: host egg signatures are an effective defence against high-fidelity African cuckoo mimicry
Jess Lund,Tanmay Dixit,Mairenn C. Attwood,Silky Hamama,Collins Moya,Martin Stevens,Gabriel A. Jamie,Claire N. Spottiswoode
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1125
2023-07-26
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Abstract:Most mimicry systems involve imperfect mimicry, whereas perfect and high-fidelity mimicry are rare. When the fidelity of mimicry is high, mimics might be expected to have the upper hand against their antagonists. However, in coevolving systems, diversification of model phenotypes may provide an evolutionary escape, because mimics cannot simultaneously match all model individuals in the population. Here we investigate high-fidelity mimicry in a highly specialized, Afrotropical brood parasite–host system: the African cuckoo and fork-tailed drongo. Specifically, we test whether host egg polymorphisms are an effective defence against such mimicry. We show, using a combination of image analysis, field experiments and simulations, that: (1) egg colour and pattern mimicry of fork-tailed drongo eggs by African cuckoos is near-perfect on average; (2) drongos show fine-tuned rejection of foreign eggs, exploiting unpredictable pattern differences between parasitic eggs and their own; and (3) the high degree of interclutch variation (polymorphic egg ‘signatures’) exhibited by drongos gives them the upper hand in the arms race, with 93.7% of cuckoo eggs predicted to be rejected, despite cuckoos mimicking the full range of drongo egg phenotypes. These results demonstrate that model diversification is a highly effective defence against mimics, even when mimicry is highly accurate.
ecology,evolutionary biology,biology
-
From Parasitism to Mutualism: Unexpected Interactions Between a Cuckoo and Its Host
Daniela Canestrari,Diana Bolopo,Ted C. J. Turlings,Gregory Röder,José M. Marcos,Vittorio Baglione
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249008
IF: 56.9
2014-03-21
Science
Abstract:Predation Favors Parasitism Parasitism in birds often results in ejection or starvation of the host's nestlings. Consequently, many host bird species have evolved protective behavior such as mobbing and parasite egg rejection. Curiously, some host species show no parasite avoidance behaviors; for example, the crow Corvus corone corone tolerates cuckoo chicks among its own brood. In a long-term study, Canestrari et al. (p. 1350 ) found that crow nests containing a cuckoo chick had lower rates of predation because the parasite's chicks secrete a noxious repellent substance. Overall, in years of high predation pressure, the presence of cuckoos improves the crow's breeding success, but when there are fewer predators around, parasitism reduces crow fitness.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
Costly conspicuousness reveals benefits of sexual dimorphism in brood parasitic diederik cuckoos
Jennifer York
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11263
IF: 3.167
2024-05-22
Ecology and Evolution
Abstract:Sexual dimorphism is typically explained by sexual selection, yet other potential drivers frequently remain untested. I examine whether Southern red bishop, Euplectes orix, hosts of the brood parasitic diederik cuckoo, Chrysococcyx caprius, differentially detect, and/or discriminate between, the male and female forms of their brood parasite. Using experimental intrusions at hosts' nests, I found no evidence that diederik cuckoos differ in detectability, and hosts were also indiscriminately aggressive toward nest intruders. However, hosts that witnessed a male diederik cuckoo model during the trial were more likely to reject odd eggs. Together, these findings suggest that the more cryptic appearance of female diederik cuckoos is beneficial given the egg rejection costs associated with conspicuous male‐like intruders at the nest. The female diederik cuckoo (left) exhibits less conspicuous plumage and facial colouration than the male (right; photography by Dominic Cram and Jenny York). The existence of adult sexual dimorphism is typically explained as a consequence of sexual selection, yet coevolutionary drivers of sexual dimorphism frequently remain untested. Here, I investigate the role of sexual dimorphism in host–parasite interactions of the brood parasitic diederik cuckoo, Chrysococcyx caprius. Female diederik cuckoos are more cryptic in appearance and pose a threat to the clutch, while male diederik cuckoos are conspicuous and not a direct threat. Specifically, I examine whether sexual dimorphism in diederik cuckoos provokes threat‐level sensitive responses in Southern red bishop, Euplectes orix, hosts. I use experimentally simulated nest intrusions to test whether hosts have the capacity to differentially (i) detect, and/or (ii) discriminate between, male and female diederik cuckoos, relative to harmless controls. Overall, I found no evidence that diederik cuckoos differ in detectability, since both sexes are comparable to controls in the probability and speed of host detection. Furthermore, neither male nor female hosts discriminate between sexually dimorphic diederik cuckoos when engaging in frontline nest defences. However, hosts that witnessed a male diederik cuckoo during the trial were more likely to reject odd eggs. Moreover, experimental eggs were significantly more likely to be rejected when female bishops observed a male compared to a female diederik cuckoo. While the cryptic appearance of female diederik cuckoos does not reduce detection by hosts, it does provide the benefit of anonymity given the egg rejection costs of conspicuous male‐like appearance in the nest vicinity. These findings have implications for the evolution and maintenance of sexual dimorphism across the Cuculidae, and highlight the value of testing assumptions about the ecological drivers of sexual dimorphism.
ecology,evolutionary biology
-
Oriental reed warblers retain strong egg recognition abilities during the nestling stage
Laikun Ma,Wei Liu,Peng Pan,Jianhua Hou,Wei Liang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11063
IF: 3.167
2024-02-21
Ecology and Evolution
Abstract:Oriental reed warblers preferentially rejected model eggs with distinct contrasting colors supporting the crypsis hypothesis. Egg recognition and rejection are the most common and effective anti‐parasitic strategies against avian brood parasitism in terms of maintaining stability over time and plasticity in response to environmental cues. Conversely, parasites have evolved multiple counter‐adaptations to the anti‐parasitic defenses of hosts. Among them, the crypsis hypothesis suggests that eggs that appear more cryptic in color and are closely matched to the environment are helping to counter the egg recognition strategy of the host. In this study, we investigated whether the egg recognition ability of Oriental reed warblers (Acrocephalus orientalis), a common host of common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus), changed during different reproductive stages by using model egg experiments. The effect of the crypsis hypothesis on the egg recognition ability of the hosts was also investigated by controlling the color contrast between the inside of the experimental nests and the model eggs. The results showed that the Oriental reed warbler retained strong egg recognition abilities, which were similar to the incubation stage (GLMMs: F1,27 = 0.424, p = .521), even after entering the nestling stage and preferentially rejected model eggs with distinct contrasting colors (binomial test: Fisher's exact, p = .016). These results are consistent with the crypsis hypothesis. The present study suggests that the host retains a strong egg recognition ability even during the nestling stage and that cryptic‐colored eggs that are closely matched with the breeding nest environment help counter the host's egg recognition abilities and increase the chances of successful parasitism by cuckoos. However, the effectiveness of cryptic egg may be weaker than mimic egg in countering egg recognition and rejection by hosts with open‐cup nests.
ecology,evolutionary biology
-
"Isolation by Gentes with Asymmetric Migration" shapes the genetic structure of the common cuckoo in China
Ning WANG,Chengbin SHAN,Dan CHEN,Yunbiao HU,Yuehua SUN,Ying WANG,Bin LIANG,Wei LIANG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12853
2024-06-15
Integrative Zoology
Abstract:In the common cuckoo system in China, the matrilineal mitochondrial genes divided different cuckoo gentes into different clades, whereas the biparental autosomal markers showed all gentes intermixing together with asymmetric gene flow. "Host preferences" in females should explain maternal line differentiation, whereas the maintenance of cuckoo species relies on random mating from males, who may exhibit more flexible migration patterns or engage in early copulation with females. "Isolation by Gentes with Asymmetric Migration" appears to fit the diversifying system of the common cuckoo in China. Amid coevolutionary arms races between brood parasitic birds and their diverse host species, the formation of host‐specific races, or gentes, has drawn significant research focus. Nevertheless, numerous questions about gentes evolutionary patterns persist. Here, we investigated the potential for gentes evolution across multiple common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) populations parasitizing diverse host species in China. Using maternal (mitochondrial and W‐linked DNA) and biparental (autosomal and Z‐linked DNA) markers, we found consistent clustering of cuckoo gentes (rather than geographical populations) into distinct clades in matrilineal gene trees, indicating robust differentiation. In contrast, biparental markers indicated intermixing of all gentes, suggesting asymmetric gene flow regardless of geography. Unlike the mitonuclear discordance commonly resulting from incomplete lineage sorting, adaptive introgression, or demographic disparities, the observed pattern in brood parasitic cuckoos might reflect biased host preferences between sexes. We hereby present the "Isolation by Gentes with Asymmetric Migration" model. According to this model, the maternal line differentiation of the common cuckoo in China is potentially driven by host preferences in females, whereas males maintained the integrity of the cuckoo species through random mating. To achieve this, cuckoo males could perform flexible migration among gentes or engage in early copulation with females before reaching the breeding sites, allowing female cuckoos to store sperm from various gentes. Future studies collecting additional samples from diverse cuckoo gentes with overlapping distribution and investigating the migratory and copulation patterns of each sex would enhance our understanding of sex‐biased differentiation among cuckoo populations in China.
zoology
-
Mobbing behaviour of hosts and non-hosts towards cuckoo Cuculus canorus of different sex
Piotr Tryjanowski,Łukasz Jankowiak,Piotr Indykiewicz,Federico Morelli,Grzegorz Grzywaczewski,Anders Pape Møller
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-024-00450-y
2024-11-28
acta ethologica
Abstract:The common cuckoo Cuculus canorus is an obligate brood parasite of many Eurasian bird species that exploit the parental care of their hosts. Although only females lay eggs in nests of passerine hosts, male and female cuckoos should cooperate to have a success in nest parasitism. Many bird species mobbing cuckoos as an element of deterrence of cuckoos from the breeding territory of the host. However, mobbing behaviour is costly, although only cuckoo females pose a threat to the dangers of the host. Because only the presence of a female cuckoo is dangerous, due to laying eggs in the nests of hosts, birds should mainly attack cuckoo females. Therefore, we tested for differences in anti-parasite response using field experiments with female and male cuckoo dummies, in 92 breeding sites with prime habitats in Poland. tested for differences in cuckoo responses in anti-parasite response using field experiments and cuckoo dummies (male and female) placed at 92 breeding sites with prime habitats in Poland. The host species that behaved most aggressively towards cuckoos was the barn swallow Hirundo rustica , while the most aggressive behaviour recorded in the non-host group was the great tit Parus major . Generally, host species reacted to cuckoo female dummies with a significantly higher probability than cuckoo males dummies. We conclude that differences in reaction by hosts and non-hosts may have arisen from selection for recognition of danger (parasite female) by reduction of reproductive success.
zoology,behavioral sciences
-
Female Cuckoo Calls Deceive Their Hosts by Evoking Nest-Leaving Behavior: Variation under Different Levels of Parasitism
Jiaojiao Wang,Laikun Ma,Xiangyang Chen,Canchao Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151990
2022-08-06
Animals
Abstract:The common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) is an obligate brood parasite that has evolved a series of strategies to trick its hosts. The female cuckoo has been hypothesized to mimic the appearance and sounds of several raptors to deceive the hosts into exhibiting anti-predator behavior. Such behavior would relax the protection of the host nest and thus allow the female cuckoo to approach the host nest unopposed. Many anti-parasite strategies have been found to vary among geographical populations due to different parasitic pressures from cuckoos. However, the effect of female cuckoo calls related to different levels of parasitic pressure has not been examined. Here, we studied the effect of female cuckoo calls on the oriental reed warbler (Acrocephalus orientalis), one of the major hosts of the common cuckoo, in two geographical populations experiencing different levels of parasite pressure. Four kinds of sounds were played back to the hosts: the calls from female common cuckoos, male common cuckoos, sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus), and oriental turtle doves (Streptopelia orientalis). The results showed that the female cuckoo calls induced the hosts to leave their nests more frequently than the male cuckoo or dove calls in both populations, and two populations of the hosts reacted similarly to the female cuckoo calls, implying that the function of female cuckoo calls would not be affected by the difference in parasitism rate. This study indicates that female cuckoo calls function to distract the hosts' attention from protecting their nests. However, we propose that such a deception by the female cuckoo call may not be due to the mimicry of sparrowhawk calls, but rather that the rapid cadence of the call that causes a sense of anxiety in the hosts.
agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences
-
Thicker eggshells are not predicted by host egg ejection behaviour in four species of Australian cuckoo
Clare E. Holleley,Alice C. Grieve,Alicia Grealy,Iliana Medina,Naomi E. Langmore
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09872-9
IF: 4.6
2022-04-15
Scientific Reports
Abstract:Abstract Defences of hosts against brood parasitic cuckoos include detection and ejection of cuckoo eggs from the nest. Ejection behaviour often involves puncturing the cuckoo egg, which is predicted to drive the evolution of thicker eggshells in cuckoos that parasitise such hosts. Here we test this prediction in four Australian cuckoo species and their hosts, using Hall-effect magnetic-inference to directly estimate eggshell thickness in parasitised clutches. In Australia, hosts that build cup-shaped nests are generally adept at ejecting cuckoo eggs, whereas hosts that build dome-shaped nests mostly accept foreign eggs. We analysed two datasets: a small sample of hosts with known egg ejection rates and a broader sample of hosts where egg ejection behaviour was inferred based on nest type (dome or cup). Contrary to predictions, cuckoos that exploit dome-nesting hosts (acceptor hosts) had significantly thicker eggshells relative to their hosts than cuckoos that exploit cup-nesting hosts (ejector hosts). No difference in eggshell thicknesses was observed in the smaller sample of hosts with known egg ejection rates, probably due to lack of power. Overall cuckoo eggshell thickness did not deviate from the expected avian relationship between eggshell thickness and egg length estimated from 74 bird species. Our results do not support the hypothesis that thicker eggshells have evolved in response to host ejection behaviour in Australian cuckoos, but are consistent with the hypothesis that thicker eggshells have evolved to reduce the risk of breakage when eggs are dropped into dome nests.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
Naïve hosts of avian brood parasites accept foreign eggs, whereas older hosts fine-tune foreign egg discrimination during laying
Csaba Moskát,Miklós Bán,Márk E Hauber
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-11-45
2014-01-01
Frontiers in Zoology
Abstract:BackgroundMany potential hosts of social parasites recognize and reject foreign intruders, and reduce or altogether escape the negative impacts of parasitism. The ontogenetic basis of whether and how avian hosts recognize their own and the brood parasitic eggs remains unclear. By repeatedly parasitizing the same hosts with a consistent parasitic egg type, and contrasting the responses of naïve and older breeders, we studied ontogenetic plasticity in the rejection of foreign eggs by the great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), a host species of the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus).ResultsIn response to experimental parasitism before the onset of laying, first time breeding hosts showed almost no egg ejection, compared to higher rates of ejection in older breeders. Young birds continued to accept foreign eggs when they were subjected to repeated parasitism, whereas older birds showed even higher ejection rates later in the same laying cycle.ConclusionsOur results are consistent with the hypotheses that (i) naïve hosts need to see and learn the appearance of their own eggs to discriminate and reject foreign eggs, whereas (ii) experienced breeders possess a recognition template of their own eggs and reject parasitic eggs even without having to see their own eggs. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that other external cues and internal processes, accumulated simply with increasing age, may also modify age-specific patterns in egg rejection (e.g. more sightings of the cuckoo by older breeders). Future research should specifically track the potential role of learning in responses of individual hosts between first and subsequent breeding attempts by testing whether imprinting on a parasitized clutch reduces the rates of rejecting foreign eggs in subsequent parasitized clutches.
zoology
-
Foreign egg retention by avian hosts in repeated brood parasitism: why do rejecters accept?
Csaba Moskát,Márk E. Hauber,Zoltán Elek,Moniek Gommers,Miklós Bán,Frank Groenewoud,Tom S. L. Versluijs,Christiaan W. A. Hoetz,Jan Komdeur
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1654-y
2013-12-04
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Abstract:Great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) are frequently parasitized by egg-mimetic common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) in Hungary, and these hosts reject about a third of parasitic eggs. The timing of parasitism is important, in that the probability of rejection decreases with advancing breeding stages in this host. Also, egg rejection is more common when a clutch is parasitized by a single foreign egg, compared to parasitism by multiple eggs. We repeatedly parasitized great reed warbler clutches with moderately mimetic foreign eggs, either with (1) one foreign egg (single parasitism) and, after 3 days, by all foreign eggs (multiple parasitism), or (2) all foreign eggs and, 3 days later, by only one foreign egg. Hosts ejected 26–53 % of the experimental parasitic eggs in the first stage of the repeated parasitism, but almost all eggs were accepted in the second stage, irrespective of whether the clutch was singly or multiply parasitized. Video-taping of the behavioural responses of hosts to experimental parasitism revealed no evidence for sensory constraints on foreign-egg recognition, because hosts recognized and pecked the parasitic eggs as frequently in the second stage of repeated parasitism, as they did in the first stage. We suggest that the relative timing of parasitism (laying vs. incubation stage), rather than learning to accept earlier-laid foreign eggs, results in higher acceptance rates of cuckoo eggs in repeated parasitism, because there is decreasing natural cuckoo parasitism on this host species and, hence, less need for antiparasitic defences, with the advancing stages of breeding.
ecology,zoology,behavioral sciences