Journal Home > Volume 11 , Issue 1
Background

Nestling discrimination and feeding habits during brooding are important factors affecting host selection of parasitic birds. Some host birds can avoid being parasitized by discriminating their nestlings or feeding food not suitable for parasitic nestlings. Thrushes are common medium-sized birds with widespread distribution and an open nesting habit, but they are rarely parasitized. It remains controversial whether this is due to feeding habits and/or nestling discrimination.

Methods

In this study, we tested the nestling discrimination ability and feeding habits of Chestnut Thrushes (Turdus rubrocanus) which is distributed in China's multi-cuckoo parasitism system. Their nestling discriminability and feeding habits during brooding were studied by cross-fostering experiments and video recording to examine evolutionary restrictions on nestling discrimination and whether feeding habits are consistent with the growth of cuckoo nestlings.

Results

Our results indicate that Chestnut Thrushes using earthworms as the main brooding food can feed and maintain cuckoo nestlings and show no nestling discrimination.

Conclusions

The present study confirms that feeding habits cannot be regarded as the main factor affecting Chestnut Thrushes being rarely parasitized by cuckoos but suggests that egg rejection is likely to limit the evolution of nestling discrimination in thrushes.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Nestling discrimination and feeding habits during brooding of Chestnut Thrushes

Show Author's information Tingting Yi1,2Yue-Hua Sun2( )Wei Liang1( )
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China
Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Abstract

Background

Nestling discrimination and feeding habits during brooding are important factors affecting host selection of parasitic birds. Some host birds can avoid being parasitized by discriminating their nestlings or feeding food not suitable for parasitic nestlings. Thrushes are common medium-sized birds with widespread distribution and an open nesting habit, but they are rarely parasitized. It remains controversial whether this is due to feeding habits and/or nestling discrimination.

Methods

In this study, we tested the nestling discrimination ability and feeding habits of Chestnut Thrushes (Turdus rubrocanus) which is distributed in China's multi-cuckoo parasitism system. Their nestling discriminability and feeding habits during brooding were studied by cross-fostering experiments and video recording to examine evolutionary restrictions on nestling discrimination and whether feeding habits are consistent with the growth of cuckoo nestlings.

Results

Our results indicate that Chestnut Thrushes using earthworms as the main brooding food can feed and maintain cuckoo nestlings and show no nestling discrimination.

Conclusions

The present study confirms that feeding habits cannot be regarded as the main factor affecting Chestnut Thrushes being rarely parasitized by cuckoos but suggests that egg rejection is likely to limit the evolution of nestling discrimination in thrushes.

Keywords: Egg rejection, Anti-parasitic strategy, Chestnut Thrushes, Feeding habits, Nestling discrimination

References(45)

Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Coevolutionary interactions between common cuckoos and corn buntings. Condor. 2006;108:414–22.

Attisano A, Sato NJ, Tanaka KD, Okahisa Y, Kuehn R, Gula R, et al. Visual discrimination of polymorphic nestlings in a cuckoo-host system. Sci Rep. 2018;8:10359.

Brackbill H. Nesting behavior of the wood thrush. Wilson Bull. 1958;70:70–89.

Brooke ML, Davies NB. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature. 1988;335:630–2.

Collar NJ. Family Turdidae (thrushes). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie D, editors. Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 10: Cuckoo-shrikes to thrushes. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2005. p. 514–807.

Davies N, Brooke ML. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol. 1989a;58:207–24.

Davies NB, Brooke ML. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. II. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol. 1989b;58:225–36.

Davies NB. Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. London: T. & A.D. Poyser; 2000.

Davies NB. Cuckoo adaptations: trickery and tuning. J Zool. 2011;284:1–14.

Glue D, Morgan R. Cuckoo hosts in British habitats. Bird Study. 1972;19:187–92.

Grim T, Honza M. Differences in behaviour of closely related thrushes (Turdus philomelos and T. merula) to experimental parasitism by the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Biologia. 2001;56:549–56.

Grim T. The evolution of nestling discrimination by hosts of parasitic birds: why is rejection so rare? Evol Ecol Res. 2006a;8:785–802.

Grim T. Cuckoo growth performance in parasitized and unused hosts: Not only host size matters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006b;60:716–23.

Grim T, Rutila J, Cassey P, Hauber ME. The cost of virulence: an experimental study of egg eviction by brood parasitic chicks. Behav Ecol. 2009;20:1138–46.

Grim T, Samas P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokkle BG. Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol. 2011;80:508–18.

Hegemann A, Voesten R. Can skylarks Alauda arvensis discriminate a parasite nestling? Possible case of nestling cuckoo Cuculus canorus ejection by its host parents. Ardea. 2011;99:117–20.

Hu Y, Wang X, Chang H, Sun Y-H. Brood parasitism on Elliot's laughingthrush by large hawk cuckoo. Chin J Zool. 2013;48:292–3.

Hu Y, Zhao Q, Lou Y, Chen L, González MA, Sun Y-H. Parental attendance of chestnut thrush reduces nest predation during the incubation period: compensation for low nest concealment? J Ornithol. 2017;158:1111–7.

Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature. 2003;422:157–60.

Lichtenstein G. Low success of shiny cowbird chicks parasitizing rufous-bellied thrushes: chick–chick competition or parental discrimination? Anim Behav. 2001;61:401–13.

Liu J, Yang C, Liang W. Brood parasitism of rosefinches by cuckoos: suitable host or accidental parasitism? J Ethol. 2019;37:83–92.

Lotem A. Learning to recognize nestling is maladaptive for cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts. Nature. 1993;362:743–4.

Lovászi P, Moskát C. Break-down of arms race between the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) and common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Behaviour. 2004;141:245–62.

Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT. Rejection behavior by common cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk. 1991;108:348–54.

Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool. 1995;236:625–48.

Moskát C, Hauber ME. Chick loss from mixed broods reflects severe nestmate competition between an evictor brood parasite and its hosts. Behav Proc. 2010;83:311–4.

Noh HJ, Gloag R, Langmore NE. True recognition of nestlings by hosts selects for mimetic cuckoo chicks. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci. 2018;2018(285):20180726.

Rothstein SI. Successes and failures in avian egg and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimal reasoning. Am Zool. 1982;22:547–60.

Rothstein SI. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1990;21:481–508.

Sato NJ, Tokue K, Noske RA, Mikami OK, Ueda K. Evicting cuckoo nestlings from the nest: a new anti-parasitism behaviour. Biol Lett. 2010;6:67–9.

Soler M. Avian brood parasitism: behaviour, ecology, evolution and coevolution. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017

DOI

Soler JJ, Møller AP, Soler M. A comparative study of host selection in the European cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Oecologia. 1999;118:265–76.

Soler M. Co-evolutionary arms race between brood parasites and their hosts at the nestling stage. J Avian Biol. 2009;40:237–40.

Soler M. Long-term coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Biol Rev. 2014;89:688–704.

Stokke BG, Ratikainen II, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Schulze-Hagen K, Leech DI, et al. Characteristics determining host suitability for a generalist parasite. Sci Rep. 2018;8:6285.

Sun Y-H, Fang Y, Klaus S, Martens J, Scherzinger W, Swenson JE. Nature of the Lianhuashan natural reserve. Shenyang: Liaoning Sci-Tech Press; 2008.

Tokue K, Ueda K. Mangrove Gerygones Gerygone laevigaster eject Little Bronze-cuckoo Chalcites minutillus hatchlings from parasitized nests. Ibis. 2010;152:835–9.

Yang C, Liang W, Antonov A, Cai Y, Stokke BG, Fossøy F, et al. Diversity of parasitic cuckoos and their hosts in China. Chin Birds. 2012;3:9–32.

Yang C, Wang L, Chen M, Liang W, Møller AP. Nestling recognition in red-rumped and barn swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2015;69:1821–6.

Yang C, Wang L, Liang W, Møller AP. High egg rejection rate in a Chinese population of grey-backed thrush. Zool Res. 2019;40:226–30.

Zhang J, Shi J, Deng W, Liang W. Nest defense and egg recognition in the grey-backed thrush (Turdus hortulorum): defense against interspecific or conspecific brood parasitism? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019;73:148.

Zhao Q, Sun Y-H. Behavioral plasticity is not significantly associated with head volume in a wild chestnut thrush (Turdus rubrocanus) population. Avian Res. 2016;7:12.

Zhao Q, Sun Y-H. Nest-site characteristics and nesting success of the chestnut thrush. Ornithol Sci. 2018;17:3–9.

Zheng G. A checklist on the classification and distribution of the birds of the world (Third Edition). Beijing: Science Press; 2017.

Zhou L, Song Y, Ma Y. Studies on breeding ecology of the balckbird. Chin J Zool. 2001;20:32–4.

Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 20 December 2019
Accepted: 12 May 2020
Published: 20 May 2020
Issue date: January 2020

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We would like to thank Lianhuashan National Nature Reserve for their help and cooperation, and Yongke Zhu, Yingqiang Lou and Yun Fang for their assistance with field work.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Return