Responses of reed warblers acrocephalus scirpaceus to non-mimetic eggs of different sizes in a nest parasitism experiment

Acta Ornithologica

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 98-104

  Stokke, Bård G ^a,b   Polačiková, Lenka ^b,c,d   Dyrcz, Andrzej ^e   Hafstad, Inge ^f   Moksnes, Arne ^a,b   Røskaft, Eivin ^a,b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

^c INSTITUTE OF VERTEBRATE BIOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

^d PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WROC AW   (Poland)

^f County Governor of Nord Trøndelag ^*  (Norway)

Author keywords

brood parasitism; Cuckoo; egg size; parasitic egg; Reed Warbler; rejection behaviour

Indexed keywords

BROOD PARASITISM; EGG REJECTION; EGG SIZE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GAMEBIRD; PASSERINE;

ACROCEPHALUS; ACROCEPHALUS SCIRPACEUS; AVES; COTURNIX; COTURNIX CHINENSIS; CUCULUS CANORUS; PHASIANIDAE;

EID: 77955618683     PISSN: 00016454     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3161/000164510X516137     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alvarez F. 2000. Response to common cuckoo Cuculus canorus model egg size by a parasitized population of rufous bush chat Cercotrichas galactotes. Ibis 142: 683-686.
2. Antonov A., Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Kleven O., Honza M., Rrskaft E. 2006a. Eggshell strength of an obligate brood parasite: a test of the puncture resistance hypothesis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 11-18.
3. Antonov A., Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 2006b. Egg rejection in marsh warblers (Acrocephalus palustris) heavily parasitized by common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). Auk 123: 419-430.
4. Antonov A., Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 2008. Getting rid of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg: why do hosts delay rejection? Behav. Ecol. 19: 100-107.
5. Antonov A., Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft, E. 2009. Evidence for egg discrimination preceding failed rejection attempts in a small cuckoo host. Biology Letters 5: 169-171.
6. Braa A. T., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 1992. Adaptations of bramblings and chaffinches towards parasitism by the common cuckoo. Anim. Behav. 43: 67-78.
7. Brooke M. D., Davies N. B., Noble D. G. 1998. Rapid decline of host defences in response to reduced cuckoo parasitism: behavioural flexibility of reed warblers in a changing world. Proc. R. Soc. B 265: 1277-1282.
8. Davies N. B., Brooke M. L. 1988. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: Adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim. Behav. 36: 262-284.
9. Davies N. B., Brooke M. 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.
10. Davies N. B., Brooke M. L., Kacelnik A. 1996. Recognition errors and the probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 925-931.
11. Dyrcz A., Halupka L. 2006. Great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus and reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus respond differently to cuckoo dummy at the nest. J. Ornithol. 147: 649-652.
12. Dyrcz A., Halupka K. 2007. Why does the frequency of nest parasitism by the cuckoo differ considerably between two populations of warblers living in the same habitat? Ethology 113: 209-213.
13. Grim T. 2005. Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 84: 69-78.
14. Grim T., Honza M. 2001. Differences in behaviour of closely related thrushes (Turdus philomelos and T. merula) to experimental parasitism by the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Biologia 56: 549-556.
15. Honza M., Procházka P., Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Čapek M. Jr., Mrlík V. 2004. Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoÓ J. Ethol. 22: 175-180.
16. Hoyt D. F. 1979. Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96: 73-77.
17. Kilner R. M. 2006. The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol. Rev. 81: 383-406.
18. Lindholm A. K. 2000. Tests of phenotypic plasticity in reed warbler defences against cuckoo parasitism. Behaviour 137: 43-60.
19. Lindholm A. K., Thomas R. T. 2000. Differences between populations of reed warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour 137: 25-42.
20. Lotem A., Nakamura H., Zahavi A. 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim. Behav. 49: 1185-1209.
21. Marchetti K. 2000. Egg rejection in a passerine bird: Size does matter. Anim. Behav. 59: 877-883.
22. Martin-Galvez D., Soler J. J., Martinez J. G., Krupa A. P., Richard M., Soler M., Mrller A. P., Burke T. 2006. A quantitative trait locus for recognition of foreign eggs in the host of a brood parasite. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 543-550.
23. Martin-Vivaldi M., Soler M., Mrller A. P. 2002. Unrealistically high costs of rejecting artificial model eggs in cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts. J. Avian Biol. 33: 295-301.
24. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 1992. Responses of some rare cuckoo hosts to mimetic model cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand. 23: 17-23.
25. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 1995. Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J. Zool. 236: 625-648.
26. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Braa A. T. 1991. Rejection behavior by common cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk 108: 348-354.
27. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Braa A. T., Korsnes L., Lampe H. M., Pedersen H. C. 1990. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116: 64-89.
28. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Hagen L. G., Honza M., Mork C., Olsen P. H. 2000. Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis 142: 247-258.
29. Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Korsnes L. 1993. Rejection of cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). Behav. Ecol. 4: 120-127.
30. Moskát C., Hauber M. E. 2007. Conflict between egg recognition and egg rejection decisions in common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) hosts. Anim. Cogn. 10: 377-386.
31. Moskát C., Szekely T., Kisbenedek T., Karcza Z., Bartol I. 2003. The importance of nest cleaning in egg rejection behaviour of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus. J. Avian Biol. 34: 16-19.
32. Rohwer S., Spaw C. D. 1988. Evolutionary lag versus bill-size constraints: a comparative study of the acceptance of cowbird eggs by old hosts. Evol. Ecol. 2: 27-36.
33. Rohwer S., Spaw C. D., Rrskaft E. 1989. Costs to northern orioles of puncture-ejecting parasitic cowbird eggs from their nests. Auk 106: 734-738.
34. Rrskaft E., Moksnes A. 1998. Coevolution between brood parasites and their hosts. An optimality approach. In: Rothstein S. I., Robinson S. K. (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 236-254.
35. Rrskaft E., Moksnes A., Stokke B. G., Moskát C., Honza M. 2002. The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos. Behav. Ecol. 13: 163-168.
36. Rrskaft E., Takasu F., Moksnes A., Stokke B. G. 2006. Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defenses against brood parasitism. Behav. Ecol. 17: 700-708.
37. Rothstein S. I. 1975a. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77: 250-271.
38. Rothstein S. I. 1975b. Evolutionary rates and host defenses against avian brood parasitism. Am. Nat. 109: 161-176.
39. Rothstein S. I. 1990. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21: 481-501.
40. Servedio M. R., Hauber M. E. 2006. To eject or to abandon? Life history traits of hosts and parasites interact to influence the fitness payoffs of alternative anti-parasite strategies. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 1585-1594.
41. Sklepowicz B., Halupka L. 2009. The use of sympatric Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and Marsh Warblers Acrocephalus palustris as breeding hosts: parasitism rates and breeding success of Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus. Acta Ornithol. 44: 177-184.
42. Spaw C. D., Rohwer S. 1987. A comparative study of eggshell thickness in cowbirds and other passerines. Condor 89: 307-318.
43. Stokke B. G., Hafstad I., Rudolfsen G., Bargain B., Beier J., Camps D. B., Dyrcz A., Honza M., Leisler B., Pap P. L., Patapavïius R., Procházka P., Schulze-Hagen K., Thomas R., Moksnes A., Mrller A. P., Rrskaft E., Soler M. 2007a. Host density predicts presence of cuckoo parasitism in reed warblers. Oikos 116: 913-922.
44. Stokke B. G., Hafstad I., Rudolfsen G., Moksnes A., Mrller A. P., Rrskaft E., Soler M. 2008. Predictors of resistance to brood parasitism within and among reed warbler populations. Behav. Ecol. 19: 612-620.
45. Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 2005. The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithol. Sci. 4: 17-29.
46. Stokke B. G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E., Rudolfsen G., Honza M. 1999. Rejection of artificial cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs in relation to variation in egg appearance among reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 1483-1488.
47. Stokke B. G., Rudolfsen G., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 2004. Rejection of conspecific eggs in chaffinches: The effect of age and clutch characteristics. Ethology 110: 459-470.
48. Stokke B. G., Takasu F., Moksnes A., Rrskaft E. 2007b. The importance of clutch characteristics and learning for antiparasite adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Evolution 61: 2212-2228.
49. Underwood T. J., Sealy S. G. 2006a. Influence of shape on egg discrimination in American robins and gray catbirds. Ethology 112: 164-173.
50. Underwood T. J., Sealy S. G. 2006b. Parameters of brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater egg discrimination in warbling vireos Vireo gilvus. J. Avian Biol. 37: 457-466.
51. Wyllie I. 1981. The cuckoo. Batsford, London.