Egg discrimination in the Yellowhammer

Condor

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 405-410

  Procházka, Petr ^a,b   Honza, Marcel ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF VERTEBRATE BIOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Brood parasitism; Cuckoo; Egg ejection; Egg recognition; Emberiza citrinella; Yellowhammer

Indexed keywords

CUCULUS CANORUS; EMBERIZA CITRINELLA;

EID: 2342582753     PISSN: 00105422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1650/7365     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. BIBER, O. 1997. Emberiza citrinella - Yellowhammer, p. 746-747. In W. J. M. Hagemeijer and M. J. Blair [EDS.], The EBCC atlas of European breeding birds: their distribution and abundance. T & A D Poyser, London.
2. BRAA, A. T., A. MOKSNES, AND E. RØSKAFT. 1992. Adaptations of Bramblings and Chaffinches towards parasitism by the Common Cuckoo. Animal Behaviour 43:67-78.
3. ČAPEK, W. 1910. Einiges über die Fortpflanzungsgeschichte des Kuckucks aus Mähren. Berichte des 5. Internationalen Ornithologischen Kongress Berlin:579-582.
4. CHERRY, M. I., AND A. T. D. BENNETT. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268:565-571.
5. DAVIES, N. B., AND M. DE L. BROOKE. 1988. Cuckoos versus Reed Warblers: adaptations and counter-adaptations. Animal Behaviour 36:262-284.
6. DAVIES, N. B., AND M. DE L. BROOKE. 1989. An experimental study of co-evolution between the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus and its hosts. II. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. Journal of Animal Ecology 58:225-236.
7. DAVIES, N. B., M. DE L. BROOKE, AND A. KACELNIK. 1996. Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether Reed Warblers should accept or reject mimetic Cuckoo eggs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 263:925-931.
8. DAWKINS, R., AND J. R. KREBS. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 205:489-511.
9. GIBBS, H. L., M. D. SORENSON, K. MARCHETTI, M. DE L. BROOKE, N. B. DAVIES, AND H. NAKAMURA. 2000. Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the Common Cuckoo. Nature 407:183-186.
10. HASSE, H. 1963. Die Goldammer (Emberiza citrinella). Ziemsen, Wittenberg-Lutherstadt, Germany.
11. HAYS, H., AND M. LECROY. 1971. Field criteria for determining incubation stage in eggs of the Common Tern. Wilson Bulletin 83:425-429.
12. HONZA, M., A. MOKSNES, E. RØSKAFT, AND B. G. STOKKE. 2001. How are different Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus morphs maintained? An evaluation of different hypotheses. Ardea 89:341-352.
13. JACKSON, W. M. 1998. Egg discrimination and eggcolor variability in the Northern Masked Weaver: the importance of conspecific versus interspecific parasitism, p. 407-418. In S. I. Rothstein and S. K. Robinson [EDS.], Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
14. JOURDAIN, F. C. R. 1925. A study of parasitism in the cuckoos. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1925:639-667.
15. LAHTI, D. C., AND A. R. LAHTI. 2002. How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Animal Behaviour 63:1135-1142.
16. LAWES, M. J., AND S. KIRKMAN. 1996. Egg recognition and interspecific brood parasitism rates in Red Bishops (Aves: Ploceidae). Animal Behaviour 52:553-563.
17. LOTEM, A., H. NAKAMURA, AND A. ZAHAVI. 1992. Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behavioral Ecology 3:128-132.
18. LOTEM, A., H. NAKAMURA, AND A. ZAHAVI. 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Animal Behaviour 49:1185-1209.
19. LYON, B. E. 2003. Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422:495-499.
20. MAKATSCH, W. 1955. Der Brutparasitismus in der Vogelwelt. Neumann Verlag, Radebeul, Germany.
21. MAKATSCH, W. 1976. Die Eier der Vögel Europas. Vol. 2. Neumann Verlag, Radebeul, Germany.
22. MARTÍN-VIVALDI, M., M. SOLER, AND A. P. MØLLER. 2002. Unrealistically high costs of rejecting artificial model eggs in Cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts. Journal of Avian Biology 33:295-301.
23. MOKSNES, A., AND E. RØSKAFT. 1989. Adaptations of Meadow Pipits to parasitism by the Common Cuckoo. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:25-30.
24. MOKSNES, A., AND E. RØSKAFT. 1992. Responses of some rare Cuckoo hosts to mimetic model Cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scandinavica 23:17-23.
25. MOKSNES, A., AND E. RØSKAFT. 1995. Egg-morphs and host preference in the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. Journal of Zoology, London 236:625-648.
26. MOKSNES, A., E. RØSKAFT, AND A. T. BRAA. 1991. Rejection behavior by Common Cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk 108:348-354.
27. MOKSNES, A., E. RØSKAFT, A. T. BRAA, L. KORSNES, H. M. LAMPE, AND H. C. PEDERSEN. 1990. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116:64-85.
28. ØIEN, I. J., A. MOKSNES, AND E. RØSKAFT. 1995. Evolution of variation in egg color and marking pattern in European passerines: adaptations in a co-evolutionary arms race with the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus. Behavioral Ecology 6:166-174.
29. ØIEN, I. J., A. MOKSNES, E. RØSKAFT, AND M. HONZA. 1998. Cost of Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism to Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. Journal of Avian Biology 29:209-215.
30. PETRIE, M., AND A. P. MØLLER. 1991. Laying eggs in others' nests: intraspecific brood parasitism in birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6:315-320.
31. PROCHÁZKA, P., AND M. HONZA. 2003. Do Common Whitethroats (Sylvia communis) discriminate against alien eggs? Journal für Ornithologie 144:354-363.
32. ROTHSTEIN, S. I. 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77:250-271.
33. ROTHSTEIN, S. I. 1982. Successes and failures in avian and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimality reasoning. American Zoologist 21:547-560.
34. ROTHSTEIN, S. I. 2001. Relic behaviours, coevolution and the retention versus loss of host defences after episodes of avian brood parasitism. Animal Behaviour 61:95-107.
35. STATSOFT. 2001. STATISTICA (data analysis software system). Version 6. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK.
36. STOKKE, B. G., M. HONZA, A. MOKSNES, E. RØSKAFT, AND G. RUDOLFSEN. 2002. Costs associated with recognition and rejection of parasitic eggs in two European passerines. Behaviour 139:629-644.
37. SUNDBERG, J., AND A. DIXON. 1996. Old, colourful male Yellowhammers, Emberiza citrinella, benefit from extra-pair copulations. Animal Behaviour 52:113-122.
38. WELBERGEN, J., J. KOMDEUR, R. KATS, AND M. BERG. 2001. Egg discrimination in the Australian Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus austrails): rejection response toward model and conspecific eggs depending on timing and mode of artificial parasitism. Behavioral Ecology 12:8-15.
39. YOM-TOV, Y. 2001. An updated list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143:133-143.