Repeated targeting of the same hosts by a brood parasite compromises host egg rejection

Nature Communications

Volumn 4, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Stevens, Martin ^a,c   Troscianko, Jolyon ^a,c   Spottiswoode, Claire N ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AVIFAUNA; BROOD PARASITISM; BURDIGALIAN; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EGG REJECTION; HOST-PARASITE INTERACTION; MIMICRY;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; BROOD PARASITE; BROOD PARASITISM; EGG; FEMALE; FINCH; HABITUAL ADAPTATION; HOST PARASITE INTERACTION; HOST RESISTANCE; NONHUMAN; RECOGNITION;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FINCHES; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PASSERIFORMES; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; ZYGOTE;

EID: 84893373396     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3475     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Rothstein, S. I. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat. 21, 481-508 (1990).
2. Dall, S. R. X., Giraldeau, L.-A., Olsson, O., McNamara, J. M. & Stephens, D. W. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 187-193 (2005).
3. Luttbeg, B. & Langen, T. A. Comparing alternative models to empirical data: cognitive models of western scrub-jay foraging behavior. Am. Nat. 163, 263-276 (2004).
4. Avilés, J. M. et al. Avian colour perception predicts behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism in chaffinches. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 293-301 (2010).
5. Brooke, M. de L. & Davies N. B. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature 335, 630-632 (1988).
6. Cassey, P., Honza, M., Grim, T. & Hauber, M. E. The modelling of avian visual perception predicts behavioural rejection responses to foreign egg colours. Biol. Lett. 4, 515-517 (2008).
7. Spottiswoode, C. N. & Stevens, M. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. PNAS 107, 8672-8676 (2010).
8. Spottiswoode, C. N. & Stevens, M. How to evade a coevolving brood parasite: egg discrimination versus egg variability as host defences. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3566-3573 (2011).
9. Hauber, M. E. & Sherman, P. W. Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 609-616 (2001).
10. Lotem, A., Nakamura, H. & Zahavi, A. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim. Behav. 49, 1185-1209 (1995).
11. Rothstein, S. I. Mechanisms and avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk 91, 796-807 (1974).
12. Lahti, D. C. & Lahti, A. R. How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Anim. Behav. 63, 1135-1142 (2002).
13. Lyon, B. Mechanism of egg recognition in defenses against conspecific brood parasitism: American coots (Fulica americana) know their own eggs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 455-463 (2007).
14. Moksnes, A. Egg recognition in chaffinches and bramblings. Anim. Behav. 44, 993-995 (1992).
15. Rothstein, S. I. Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: do birds know their own eggs. Anim. Behav. 23, 268-278 (1975).
16. Victoria, J. K. Clutch characteristics and egg discriminative ability of the African village weaverbird Ploceus cucullatus. Ibis 114, 367-376 (1972).
17. Marchetti, K. Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim. Behav. 59, 877-883 (2000).
18. Riehl, C. A simple rule reduces costs of extragroup parasitism in a communally breeding bird. Curr. Biol. 20, 1830-1833 (2010).
19. Bán, M., Moskát, C., Barta, Z. & Hauber, M. E. Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for egg rejection by a cuckoo host. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1014-1021 (2013).
20. Moskát, C. et al. Discordancy or template-based recognition? Dissecting the cognitive basis of the rejection of foreign eggs in hosts of avian brood parasites. J. Experim. Biol. 213, 1976-1983 (2010).
21. Dukas, R. Costs of memory: ideas and predictions. J. Theor. Biol. 197, 41-50 (1999).
22. Vernon, C. J. The breeding of the Cuckoo Weaver Anomalospiza imberbis in southern Rhodesia. Ostrich 35, 260-263 (1964).
23. Stevens, M. Avian vision and egg coloration: concepts and measurements. Avian Biol. Res. 4, 190-206 (2011).
24. Stoddard, M. C. & Stevens, M. Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird's eye. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 1387-1393 (2010).
25. Langmore, N. E. et al. Visual mimicry of host nestlings by cuckoos. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2455-2463 (2011).
26. Stoddard, M. C. & Stevens, M. Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution 65, 2004-2013 (2011).
27. Welbergen, J. A. & Davies, N. B. A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts. Behav. Ecol. 22, 574-579 (2011).
28. Moskát, C. et al. Increased host tolerance of multiple cuckoo eggs leads to higher fledging success of the brood parasite. Anim. Behav. 77, 1281-1290 (2009).
29. Hart, N. S., Partridge, J. C., Cuthill, I. C. & Bennett, A. T. D. Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J. Comp. Physiol. A 186, 375-387 (2000).
30. Vorobyev, M. & Osorio, D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc. R. Soc. B 265, 351-358 (1998).
31. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2011).
32. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S 4th edn (Springer, 2002).
33. Faraway, J. J Extending the Linear Model With R (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006).