The importance of nest cleaning in egg rejection behaviour of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus

Journal of Avian Biology

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 16-19

  Moskát, Csaba ^a   Székely, Tamás ^b   Kisbenedek, Tibor ^a   Karcza, Zsolt ^c,d   Bártol, István ^e,f  

^a Institute and Museum of Military History Budapest   (Hungary)

^b University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^c BirdLife Hungary   (Hungary)

^d Institute for Environment Management   (Hungary)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

^f Nemzeti Park Igazgatosagok Hungary   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EGG REJECTION; NEST; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PARASITE INFESTATION;

ACROCEPHALUS ARUNDINACEUS; CUCULUS CANORUS; PHRAGMITES;

EID: 0038019674     PISSN: 09088857     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-048X.2003.02919.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bártol, I., Moskát, C., Karcza, Z. and Kisbenedek, T. 2002. Great reed warblers bury artificial objects, not only cuckoo eggs. - Acta Zool. Hung. 48: in press.
2. Cherry, M. I. and Bennett, A. T. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 565-571.
3. Davies, N. B. 2000. Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. - T & A D Poyser, London.
4. Davies, N. B. and Brooke, M. de L. 1988. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. - Anim. Behav. 36: 262-284.
5. Davies, N. B. and Brooke, M. de L. 1989. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. - J. Anim. Ecol. 58: 207-224.
6. Davies, N. B. and Brooke, M. de L. 1998. Cuckoos versus hosts. Experimental evidence for coevolution. - In: Rothstein, S. I. and Robinson, S. K. (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 59-79.
7. Davies, N. B., Brooke, M. de L. and Kacelnik, A. 1996. Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 925-931.
8. Hosoi, S. A. and Rothstein, S. I. 2000. Nest desertion and cowbird parasitism: evidence for evolved responses and evolutionary lag. - Anim. Behav. 59: 823-840.
9. Lotem, A. and Nakamura, H. 1998. Evolutionary equilibria in avian brood parasitism. - In: Rothstein, S. I. and Robinson, S. K. (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 223-235.
10. Lotem, A., Nakamura, H. and Zahavi, A. 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host coevolution. - Anim. Behav. 49: 1185-1209.
11. Marchetti, K. 1992. Costs to host defence and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 248: 41-45.
12. Martins, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 296-299.
13. Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E. and Braa, A. T. 1991a. Rejection behavior by common cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. - Auk 108: 348-354.
14. Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E., Braa, A. T., Korsnes, L., Lampe, H. M. and Pedersen, H. C. 1991b. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. - Behaviour 116: 64-89.
15. Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E. and Korsnes, L. 1993. Rejection of cuckoo eggs by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). - Behav. Ecol. 4: 120-127.
16. Moskát, C. and Fuisz, T. 1999. Reactions of red-backed shrikes Lanius collurio to artificial cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs. - J. Avian Biol. 30: 175-181.
17. Moskát, C. and Honza, M. 2000. Effect of nest and nest site characteristics on the risk of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundianceus. - Ecography 23: 335-341.
18. Moskát, C. and Honza, M. 2002. European cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism and host's rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus population. - Ibis 144: 614-622.
19. Øien, I. J., Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E., Edvardsen, E., Honza, M., Kleven, O. and Rudolfsen, G. 1999. Conditional host responses to cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism. - In: Adams, N. J. and Slotow, R. H. (eds). Proc. 22 Int. Ornithol. Congr., Durban, Johannesburg. BirdLife South Africa, pp. 3125-3145.
20. Ortega, C. P. and Cruz, A. 1988. Mechanisms of egg acceptance by marsh-dwelling blackbirds. - Condor 90: 349-358.
21. Rodriguez-Gironés, M. A. and Lotem, A. 1999. How to detect a cuckoo egg: a signal-detection theory model for recognition and learning. - Am. Nat. 153: 633-648.
22. Røskaft, E. and Moksnes, A. 1998. Coevolution between brood parasites and their hosts: an optimality theory approach. - In: Rothstein, S. I. and Robinson, S. K. (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 236-254.
23. Rothstein, S. I. 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. - Condor 77: 250-271.
24. Rothstein, S. I. 1982. Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 11: 229-239.
25. Sealy, S. G. and Lorenzana, J. C. 1998. Yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia) do not recognize their own eggs. - Bird Behavior 12: 57-66.
26. Tinbergen, N., Nroekhuysen, G. J., Feekes, F., Houghton, J. C., Kruuk, H. and Szulc, E. 1963. Egg shell removal by the black-headed gull, Larus ridibundus L.: a behaviour component of camouflage. - Behaviour 19: 74-117.
27. Wyllie, I. 1981. The Cuckoo. - Batsford, London.