Open Access
Issue
Published:
02 September 2020
Potential cuckoo hosts have similar egg rejection rates to parasitized host species
),
Wei Liang1(
)
Download citation
496
Views
37
Downloads
5
Crossref
N/A
WoS
5
Scopus
0
CSCD
Thrush species are rarely parasitized by cuckoos, but many have a strong egg recognition ability. To date, there is a limited understanding of the relationship between host egg rejection and cuckoo parasitism rate.
By using egg experiments in the field, we compared egg rejection between two non-parasitized potential host species and two parasitized hosts of cuckoos in the same region.
The White-bellied Redstart (Luscinia phoenicuroides), a host of the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), rejected 66.6% of blue model eggs; the Elliot's Laughingthrush (Trochalopteron elliotii), a host of the Large Hawk Cuckoo (Hierococcyx sparverioides), rejected 25% of blue model eggs and 46.1% of white model eggs; and the Chestnut Thrush (Turdus rubrocanus) and the Chinese Thrush (T. mupinensis), in which cuckoo parasitism has not been recorded, rejected 41.1 and 83.3% of blue model eggs, respectively. There were no significant differences in the egg rejection among them, although the Chinese Thrush showed the highest rate of egg rejection.
This study indicates that the egg recognition ability of cuckoo hosts has no correlation with the actual parasitism rate of cuckoos. We suggest that the egg recognition ability of the two potential host species may have been retained from a parasitic history with the cuckoo, while the two common host species have developed their egg rejection abilities due to current parasitism pressure. In addition, our study highlights the importance of the multi- cuckoo parasite system for better understanding the selection pressure of parasitism on the evolution of host egg recognition abilities.
menu
Potential cuckoo hosts have similar egg rejection rates to parasitized host species
), Wei Liang1(
)
Abstract
Thrush species are rarely parasitized by cuckoos, but many have a strong egg recognition ability. To date, there is a limited understanding of the relationship between host egg rejection and cuckoo parasitism rate.
By using egg experiments in the field, we compared egg rejection between two non-parasitized potential host species and two parasitized hosts of cuckoos in the same region.
The White-bellied Redstart (Luscinia phoenicuroides), a host of the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), rejected 66.6% of blue model eggs; the Elliot's Laughingthrush (Trochalopteron elliotii), a host of the Large Hawk Cuckoo (Hierococcyx sparverioides), rejected 25% of blue model eggs and 46.1% of white model eggs; and the Chestnut Thrush (Turdus rubrocanus) and the Chinese Thrush (T. mupinensis), in which cuckoo parasitism has not been recorded, rejected 41.1 and 83.3% of blue model eggs, respectively. There were no significant differences in the egg rejection among them, although the Chinese Thrush showed the highest rate of egg rejection.
This study indicates that the egg recognition ability of cuckoo hosts has no correlation with the actual parasitism rate of cuckoos. We suggest that the egg recognition ability of the two potential host species may have been retained from a parasitic history with the cuckoo, while the two common host species have developed their egg rejection abilities due to current parasitism pressure. In addition, our study highlights the importance of the multi- cuckoo parasite system for better understanding the selection pressure of parasitism on the evolution of host egg recognition abilities.
References(57)
Bártol I, Karcza Z, Moskát C, Røskaft E, Kisbenedek T. Responses of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus to experimental brood parasitism: the effects of a cuckoo Cuculus canorus dummy and egg mimicry. J Avian Biol. 2002;33:420–5.
Brooke MdeL, Davies NB. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature. 1988;335:630–2.
Davies NB, Butchart SHM, Burke TA, Chaline N, Stewart IRK. Reed warblers guard against cuckoos and cuckoldry. Anim Behav. 2003;65:285–95.
Davies NB, Brooke MDL. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav. 1988;36:262–84.
Davies NB, Brooke MdeL, Kacelnik A. Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci. 1996;263:925–31.
Gätner K. Zur Ablehnung von Eiern und Jungen des Kuckucks (Cuculus canorus) durch die Wirtsvögel-Beobachtungen und experimentelle Untersuchungen am Sumpfrohrsänger (Acrocephalus palustris). Die Vogelwelt. 1982;103:201–24.
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. Biol Brat. 2001;56:549–56.
Grim T, Samǎs P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, et al. Constraints on host choice: Why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol. 2011;80:508–18.
Hu Y, Jiang Y, Chang H, Wang D, Sun Y-H. Brood parasitism on white-bellied redstart by common cuckoo. Chin J Zool. 2013a;48:769–73.
Hu Y, Wang X, Chang H, Sun Y-H. Brood parasitism on Elliot's laughingthrush by large hawk cuckoo. Chin J Zool. 2013b;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.
Huo J, Su T, Yao X, Yang C, Liang W. Brood parasitism on white-bellied redstart (Hodgsonius phaenicuroides) by large hawk-cuckoo (Cuculus sparverioides). Chin J Zool. 2016;51:1101–5.
Jiang Y, Zhu Y, Sun Y-H. Notes on reproductive biology of Elliot's laughingthrush at Zhuoni. Gansu. Sichuan J Zool. 2007;26:555–6.
Lahti DC. Persistence of egg recognition in the absence of cuckoo brood parasitism: Pattern and mechanism. Evolution. 2006;60:157–68.
Li D, Bai Y, Li X, Guan S, Liu Y, Zhang Z. Lack of fine-tuned egg rejection adjustment in barn swallows with variable local abundance of common cuckoos. Behav Proc. 2020;174:104087.
Liang W, Møller AP, Stokke BG, Yang C, Kovařík P, Wang H, et al. Geographic variation in egg ejection rate by great tits across 2 continents. Behav Ecol. 2016;27:1405–12.
Liu X, Sun Y-H, Song J, Jia C, Fang Y. Notes on breeding of Chinese thrush at Lianhuashan Nature Reserve. Gansu Province. Sichuan J Zool. 2003;22:235–7.
Liu P, Sun Y-H. Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in Elliot's laughingthrush Trochalopteron elliotii. Ardea. 2016;104:177–81.
Lu X, Yu T, Liang W, Yang C. Comparative breeding ecology of two whitebellied redstart populations at different altitudes. J Field Ornithol. 2010;81:167–75.
Medina I, Langmore NE. The costs of avian brood parasitism explain variation in egg rejection behaviour in hosts. Biol Lett. 2015;11:20150296.
Moskát C, Székely T, Kisbenedek T, Karcza Z, Bártol I. The importance of nest cleaning in egg rejection behaviour of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arandinaceas. J Avian Biol. 2003;34:16–9.
Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Adaptations of meadow pipits to parasitism by the common cuckoo. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1989;24:25–30.
Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour. 1991;116:64–89.
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.
Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Hagen LG, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH. Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis. 2000;142:247–58.
Payne RB. The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1977;8:1–28.
Peer BD, McIntosh CE, Kuehn MJ, Rothstein SI, Fleischer RC. Complex biogeographic history of Lanius shrikes and its implications for the evolution of defenses against avian brood parasitism. Condor. 2011;113:385–94.
Peer BD, Rothstein SI, Delaney KS, Fleischer RC. Defence behaviour against brood parasitism is deeply rooted in mainland and island scrub-jays. Anim Behav. 2007;73:55–63.
Peer BD, Sealy SG. Fate of grackle (Quiscalus spp.) defenses in the absence of brood parasitism: Implications for long-term parasite-host coevolution. Auk. 2004;121:1172–86.
Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Meilvang D, Bicík V, Jemelíková J, Honza M. No evidence for recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol. 2002;33:31–8.
Rothstein SI. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor. 1975;77:250–71.
Rothstein SI. Cowbird parasitism and egg recognition of the northern oriole. Wilson Bull. 1977;89:21–32.
Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Roncalli G, Abaurrea T, Ibáñez-Álamo JD. Egg rejection in blackbirds Turdus merula: A by-product of conspecific parasitism or successful resistance against interspecific brood parasites? Front Zool. 2016;13:1–12.
Samǎs P, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Grim T. Host responses to interspecific brood parasitism: A by-product of adaptations to conspecific parasitism? Front Zool. 2014;11:34.
Sealy SG, Neudorf DL, Hill DP. Rapid laying by brown-headed cowbirds Molothrus ater and other parasitic birds. Ibis. 1995;137:76–84.
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, Ruiz-Raya F, Roncalli G, Ibáñez-Álamo JD. Nest desertion cannot be considered an egg-rejection mechanism in a medium-sized host: An experimental study with the common blackbird Turdus merula. J Avian Biol. 2015;46:369–77.
Soler M. Long-term coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Biol Rev. 2014a;89:688–704.
Soler M. No evidence of conspecific brood parasitism provoking egg rejection in thrushes. Front Zool. 2014b;11:68.
Stokke BG, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G. Costs associated with recognition and rejection of parasitic eggs in two European passerines. Behaviour. 2002;139:629–44.
Underwood TJ, Sealy SG, McLaren CM. Experiments on egg discrimination in two North American corvids: Further evidence for retention of egg ejection. Can J Zool. 2004;82:1399–407.
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, Liang W, Cai Y, Shi S, Takasu F, Møller AP, et al. Coevolution in action: Disruptive selection on egg colour in an avian brood parasite and its host. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10816.
Yang C, Liang W, Møller AP. Egg retrieval versus egg rejection in cuckoo hosts. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2019a;374:20180200.
Yang C, Liu Y, Liang W. Egg trait variation in a large hawk-cuckoo (Hierococcyx sparverioides) host population of Chinese babax (Babax lanceolatus). Int Zool. 2015a;10:295–301.
Yang C, Liu Y, Zeng L, Liang W. Egg color variation, but not egg rejection behavior, changes in a cuckoo host breeding in the absence of brood parasitism. Ecol Evol. 2014;4:2239–46.
Yang C, Su T, Liang W, Møller AP. Coevolution between the large hawk-cuckoo (Cuculus sparverioides) and its two sympatric Leiothrichidae hosts: Evidence for recent expansion and switch in host use? Biol J Linn Soc. 2015b;115:919–26.
Yang C, Chen M, Wang L, Liang W, Møller AP. Nest sanitation elicits egg discrimination in cuckoo hosts. Anim Cogn. 2015c;18:1373–7.
Yang C, Wang L, Liang W, Møller AP. High egg rejection rate in a Chinese population of grey-backed thrush (Turdus hortulorum). Zool Res. 2019b;40:226–30.
Yi T, Sun Y-H, Liang W. Egg rejection and egg recognition mechanism of chestnut thrushes. Behav Proc. 2020;178:10458.
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.
Zheng G. A checklist on the classification and distribution of the birds of China (Third Edition). Beijing: Science Press; 2017.
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive 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.
FEEDBACK 
TOP