Color plumage polymorphism and predator mimicry in brood parasites

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Trnka, Alfréd ^a   Grim, Tomáš ^b  

^a TRNAVA UNIVERSITY   (Slovakia)

^b PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Brood parasitism; Frequency dependent selection; Mimic; Model; Polymorphism

Indexed keywords

ACCIPITER NISUS; ACROCEPHALUS ARUNDINACEUS; AVES; COLUMBIFORMES; CUCULIDAE; CUCULUS CANORUS; FALCO TINNUNCULUS; STREPTOPELIA; STREPTOPELIA TURTUR; TESTUDINES;

EID: 84877261266     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-25     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bond AB. The evolution of color polymorphism: crypticity, searching images, and apostatic selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2007, 38:489-514.
2. Fowlie MK, Krüger O. The evolution of plumage polymorphism in birds of prey and owls: the apostatic selection hypothesis revisited. J Evol Biol 2003, 16:577-583. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00564.x, 14632221.
3. Galeotti P, Rubolini D, Dunn PO, Fasola M. Colour polymorphism in birds: causes and functions. J Evol Biol 2003, 16:635-646. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00569.x, 14632227.
4. Payne RB. Interspecific communication signals in parasitic birds. Am Nat 1967, 101:363-375.
5. Honza M, Šicha V, Procházka P, Ležalová R. Host nest defense against a color-dimorphic brood parasite: great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) versus common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). J Ornithol 2006, 147:629-637.
6. Thorogood R, Davies NB. Cuckoos combat socially transmitted defenses of reed warbler hosts with a plumage polymorphism. Science 2012, 337:578-580. 10.1126/science.1220759, 22859487.
7. Davies NB, Welbergen JA. Cuckoo-hawk mimicry? An experimental test. Proc R Soc B 2008, 275:1817-1822. 10.1098/rspb.2008.0331, 2587796, 18467298.
8. Welbergen JA, Davies NB. A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts. Behav Ecol 2011, 22:574-579.
9. Feeney WE, Welbergen JA, Langmore NE. The frontline of avian brood parasite-host coevolution. Anim Behav 2012, 84:3-12.
10. Voipio P. The hepaticus variety and the juvenile types of the cuckoo. Ornis Fenn 1953, 30:97-117.
11. Krüger O, Davies NB, Sorenson MD. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in parasitic cuckoos: sexual selection or coevolution. Proc R Soc B 2007, 274:1553-1560. 10.1098/rspb.2007.0281, 2211511, 17439849.
12. Thorogood R, Davies NB. Hawk mimicry and the evolution of polymorphic cuckoos. Chinese Birds 2013, 4:39-50.
13. Welbergen JA, Davies NB. Strategic variation in mobbing as a front line of defense against brood parasitism. Curr Biol 2009, 19:235-240.
14. Mappes J, Lindström L. How did the cuckoo get its polymorphic plumage?. Science 2012, 337:532-533. 10.1126/science.1225997, 22859476.
15. Trnka A, Prokop P. The effectiveness of hawk mimicry in protecting the cuckoos from aggressive hosts. Anim Behav 2012, 83:263-268.
16. Trnka A, Prokop P, Grim T. Uncovering dangerous cheats: how do avian hosts recognize adult brood parasites?. PLoS One 2012, 7:e37445. 10.1371/journal.pone.0037445, 3356260, 22624031.
17. Sealy SG, Neudorf DL, Hobson KA, Gill SA. Nest defense by potential hosts of the brown-headed cowbird: methodological approaches, benefits of defense, and coevolution. Parasitic birds and their hosts: Studies in coevolution 1998, 194-211. New York: Oxford University Press, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK.
18. Grim T. Host recognition of brood parasites: Implications for methodology in studies of enemy recognition. Auk 2005, 122:530-543.
19. Danko T, Darolová A, Krištín A. Birds distribution in Slovakia 2003, Bratislava: Veda.
20. Dyrcz A, Halupka L. Great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus and reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus respond differently to cuckoo dummy at the nest. J Ornithol 2006, 147:649-652.
21. Grim T. Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not?. Biol J Linn Soc 2005, 84:69-78.
22. Grim T. Mimicry, signalling, and coevolution. Ethology 2013, 119:270-277.
23. Molnár B. The cuckoo in the Hungarian Plain. Aquila 1944, 51:100-112.
24. Janisch M. Fight between Cuculus c. canorus L. - cuckoo - and Acrocephalus a. arundinaceus L. - great reed warbler. Aquila 1948, 55:291.
25. Lindholm AK, Thomas RJ. Differences between populations of reed warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour 2000, 137:25-42.
26. Davies NB, Welbergen JA. Social transmission of a host defense against cuckoo parasitism. Science 2009, 324:1318-320. 10.1126/science.1172227, 19498167.
27. Strnad M, Němec M, Veselý P, Fuchs R. Red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio) adjust the mobbing intensity, but not mobbing frequency, by assessing the potential threat to themselves from different predators. Ornis Fenn 2012, 89:206-2015.
28. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Hagen GL, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH. Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis 2000, 142:247-258.
29. Wyllie I. The cuckoo 1981, London: Batsford.
30. Langmore NE, Spottiswoode CN. Host manipulation through visual trickery in avian brood parasites. Host manipulation by parasites 2012, 95-115. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Hughes DP, Brodeur J, Thomas F.
31. Grim T. The evolution of nestling discrimination by hosts of parasitic birds: why is rejection so rare?. Evol Ecol Res 2006, 8:785-802.
32. Grim T. Ejecting chick cheats: a changing paradigm?. Front Zool 2011, 8(6):14. 3141653, 21668974.
33. Stoddard MC. Mimicry and masquerade from the avian visual perspective. Curr Zool 2012, 58:630-648.
34. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Bičík V, Moskát C. Aggression to dummy cuckoos by potential European cuckoo hosts. Behaviour 2002, 139:613-628.
35. Grim T, Samaš P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts?. J Anim Ecol 2011, 80:508-518. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x, 21244420.
36. Matyjasiak P. Birds associate species-specific acoustic and visual cues: recognition of heterospecific rivals by male blackcaps. Behav Ecol 2004, 16:467-471.
37. Ligon RA, Hill GE. Do adult eastern bluebird, Sialia sialis, males recognize juvenile-specific traits?. Anim Behav 2009, 77:1267-1272. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.01.031, 2703501, 20161226.
38. Moskát C. Nest defence and egg rejection in great reed warblers over the breeding cycle: are they synchronised with the risk of brood parasitism?. Ann Zool Fenn 2006, 42:579-586.
39. Honza M, Procházka P, Šicha V, Požgayová M. Nest defence in a cuckoo host: great reed warblers risk themselves equally for their own and parasitic chicks. Behaviour 2010, 147:741-756.
40. Trnka A, Grim T. To compensate or not to compensate: testing the negotiation model in the context of nest defence. Behav Ecol 2013, 24:223-228.
41. Čapek M, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Honza M. Repeated presentations of the common cuckoo increase nest defense by the Eurasian reed warbler but do not induce it to make recognition errors. Condor 2010, 112:763-769.
42. Campobello D, Sealy SG. Enemy recognition of reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus): threats and reproductive value act independently in nest defence modulation. Ethology 2010, 115:498-508.
43. Trnka A, Prokop P. Does social mating system influence nest defence behaviour in great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) males?. Ethology 2010, 116:1075-1083.
44. Graham MH. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 2003, 84:2809-2815.
45. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 2009, 24:127-135. 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008, 19185386.
46. Nakagawa S. A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol 2004, 15:1044-1045.
47. Lombardi CM, Hurlbert SH. Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests. Austral Ecol 2009, 34:447-468.