Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 104:54 | Cite as

Does contrast between eggshell ground and spot coloration affect egg rejection?

  • Miri DainsonEmail author
  • Mark E. Hauber
  • Analía V. López
  • Tomáš Grim
  • Daniel Hanley
Original Paper

Abstract

Obligate avian brood parasitic species impose the costs of incubating foreign eggs and raising young upon their unrelated hosts. The most common host defence is the rejection of parasitic eggs from the nest. Both egg colours and spot patterns influence egg rejection decisions in many host species, yet no studies have explicitly examined the role of variation in spot coloration. We studied the American robin Turdus migratorius, a blue-green unspotted egg-laying host of the brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater, a brood parasite that lays non-mimetic spotted eggs. We examined host responses to model eggs with variable spot coloration against a constant robin-mimetic ground colour to identify patterns of rejection associated with perceived contrast between spot and ground colours. By using avian visual modelling, we found that robins were more likely to reject eggs whose spots had greater chromatic (hue) but not achromatic (brightness) contrast. Therefore, egg rejection decision rules in the American robin may depend on the colour contrast between parasite eggshell spot and host ground coloration. Our study also suggests that egg recognition in relation to spot coloration, like ground colour recognition, is tuned to the natural variation of avian eggshell spot colours but not to unnatural spot colours.

Keywords

American robin Brood parasitism Chroma Egg rejection Spectrometry Spot coloration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For access to nests, we thank the landowners in and around Ithaca, NY. For funding, we are grateful to the Human Frontier Science Program RGY 83/2012 (to MEH and TG). The European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic (CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0041) provided additional funding to DH and TG. We also thank Brani Igic for assistance at the onset of field work. We thank anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

All data for this study were acquired following approval by the Hunter College Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (MH 2/16-T3).

References

  1. Aidala Z, Croston R, Schwartz J, Tong L, Hauber ME (2015) The role of egg-nest contrast in the rejection of brood parasitic eggs. J Exp Biol 218:1126–1136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Avilés J (2008) Egg colour mimicry in the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus as revealed by modelling host retinal function. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275:2345–2352. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2008.0720
  3. Avilés JM, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG (2010) Avian colour perception predicts behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism in chaffinches. J Evol Biol 23:293–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bán M, Moskát C, Barta Z, Hauber ME (2013) Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for egg rejection by a cuckoo host. Behav Ecol 24:1014–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bent AC (1958) Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. Bull US Nat Mus 211:1–549Google Scholar
  6. Cassey P, Honza M, Grim T, Hauber ME (2008) The modelling of avian visual perception predicts behavioural rejection responses to foreign egg colours. Biol Lett 4:515–517CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassey P, Portugal SJ, Maurer G, Ewen JG, Boulton RL, Hauber ME, Blackburn T (2010) Variability in avian eggshell colour: a comparative study of museum eggshells. PLoS One 5:e12054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Croston R, Hauber ME (2014a) High repeatability of egg rejection in response to experimental brood parasitism in the American robin (Turdus migratorius). Behaviour 151:703–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croston R, Hauber ME (2014b) Spectral tuning and perceptual differences do not explain the rejection of brood parasitic eggs by American robins (Turdus migratorius). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats, 1st edn. T & AD Poyser Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies NB, Brooke MDLB (1989) 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 58:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De la Colina M, Pompilio L, Hauber ME, Reboreda J, Mahler B (2012) Different recognition cues reveal the decision rules used for egg rejection by hosts of a variably mimetic avian brood parasite. Anim Cogn 15:881–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (2015) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinets V, Samaš P, Croston R, Grim T, Hauber ME (2015) Predicting the responses of native birds to transoceanic invasions by avian brood parasites. Journal of Field Ornithology 86:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forstmeier W, Schielzeth H (2010) Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:47–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedmann H, Kiff L, Rothstein S (1977) A further contribution of knowledge of the host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 1–75Google Scholar
  17. Govardovskii VI, Fyhrquist N, Reuter T, Kuzmin DG, Donner K (2000) In search of the visual pigment template. Vis Neurosci 17:509–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grafen A, Hails R (2002) Modern statistics for the life sciences, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Grim T (2005) Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not? Biol J Linn Soc 84:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grim T, Samaš P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG (2011) Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol 80:508–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grim T, Samaš P, Hauber ME (2014) The repeatability of avian egg ejection behaviors across different temporal scales, breeding stages, female ages and experiences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:749–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanley D, Grim T, Cassey P, Hauber ME (2015a) Not so colourful after all: eggshell pigments constrain avian eggshell colour space. Biol Lett 11:20150087CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanley D, Samaš P, Heryán J, Hauber ME, Grim T (2015b) Now you see it, now you don't: flushing hosts prior to experimentation can predict their responses to brood parasitism. Scientific Reports 5:9060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanley D, Grim T, Igic B, Samaš P, López A, Shawkey M, Hauber ME (2017) Egg discrimination along a gradient of natural variation in eggshell coloration. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20162592Google Scholar
  25. Hart NS, Vorobyev M (2005) Modelling oil droplet absorption spectra and spectral sensitivities of bird cone photoreceptors. J Comp Physiol a 191:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD (2000) Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J Comp Physiol A 186:375–387. doi: 10.1007/s003590050437
  27. Hauber ME, Moskát C, Bán M (2006) Experimental shift in hosts’ acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs. Biol Lett 2:177–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauber ME, Tong L, Bán M, Croston R, Grim T, Waterhouse GIN, Shawkey MD, Barron AB, Moskát C (2015) The value of artificial stimuli in behavioral research: making the case for egg rejection studies in avian brood parasitism. Ethology 121:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hurlbert S (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Igic B, Greenwood D, Palmer DJ, Cassey P, Gill B, Grim T, Brennan P, Bassett S, Battley P, Hauber ME (2010) Detecting pigments from colourful eggshells of extinct birds. Chemoecology 20:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Igic B, Cassey P, Grim T, Greenwood D, Moskát C, Rutila J, Hauber ME (2012) A shared chemical basis of avian host-parasite egg colour mimicry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:1068–1076Google Scholar
  32. Igic B, Nunez V, Voss H, Croston R, Aidala Z, López A, Van Tatenhove A, Holford ME, Shawkey M, Hauber ME (2015) Using 3D printed eggs to examine the egg-rejection behaviour of wild birds. PeerJ 3:e965CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy GY, Vevers HG (1976) A survey of avian eggshell pigments. Comp Biochem Physiol Part B: Comp Biochem 55:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilner RM (2006) The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol rev 81:383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Polit Anal 9:137–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. López-de-Hierro MDG, Moreno-Rueda G (2009) Egg-spot pattern rather than egg colour affects conspecific egg rejection in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luro A, Hauber ME (2017) A test of the nest sanitation hypothesis for the evolution of foreign egg rejection in an avian brood parasite rejecter host species. The Science of Nature 104(3–4):14Google Scholar
  38. Lyon BE, Eadie JM (1991) Mode of development and interspecific avian brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 2:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton P, Doucet SM, Shawkey MD (2013) pavo :an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:906–913Google Scholar
  40. Mason P, Rothstein SI (1986) Coevolution and avian brood parasitism: cowbird eggs show evolutionary response to host discrimination. Evolution 40:1207–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Moskát C, Hauber ME (2007) Conflict between egg recognition and egg rejection decisions in common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) hosts. Anim Cogn 10:377–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Moskát C, Avilés JM, Bán M, Hargitai R, Zölei A (2008) Experimental support for the use of egg uniformity in parasite egg discrimination by cuckoo hosts. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1885–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moskát C, Bán M, Székely T, Komdeur J, Lucassen RWG, van Boheemen LA, Hauber ME (2010) Discordancy or template-based recognition? Dissecting the cognitive basis of the rejection of foreign eggs in hosts of avian brood parasites. J Exp Biol 213:1976–1983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olsson P, Lind O, Kelber A (2015) Bird colour vision: behavioural thresholds reveal receptor noise. J Exp Biol 218:184–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ortega CP (1998) Cowbirds and other brood parasites, 1st edn. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  47. Polačiková L, Procházka P, Cherry M, Honza M (2008) Choosing suitable hosts: common cuckoos Cuculus canorus parasitize great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus of high quality. Evol Ecol 23:879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothstein SI (1974) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk 91:796–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rothstein SI (1975) An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77:250–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rothstein SI (1982) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (1998) Parasitic birds and their hosts, 1st edn. Oxford university press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Samaš P, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Grim T (2011) Repeatability of foreign egg rejection: testing the assumptions of co-evolutionary theory. Ethology 117(7):606–619Google Scholar
  53. Samaš P, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Grim T (2014) Host responses to interspecific brood parasitism: a by-product of adaptations to conspecific parasitism? Front Zool 11:34Google Scholar
  54. Servedio MR, Hauber ME (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 19:1585–1594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2010) Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:8672–8676Google Scholar
  57. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2011) How to evade a coevolving brood parasite: egg discrimination versus egg variability as host defences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278:3566–3573Google Scholar
  58. Stevens M, Troscianko J, Spottiswoode CN (2013) Repeated targeting of the same hosts by a brood parasite compromises host egg rejection. Nat Commun 4:2475PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Stoddard MC, Prum RO (2011) How colorful are birds? Evolution of the avian plumage color gamut. Behav Ecol 22:1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stoddard MC, Stevens M (2010) Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a birds eye. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277:1387–1393Google Scholar
  61. Stoddard MC, Stevens M (2011) Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution 65:2004–2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Stuart-Fox D, Moussalli A (2008) Selection for social signalling drives the evolution of chameleon colour change. PLoS Biol 6:e25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Swynnerton CFM (1918) VII.— Rejections by birds of eggs unlike their own: with remarks on some of the cuckoo problems. Ibis 60:127–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Underwood TJ, Sealy SG (2006) Influence of shape on egg discrimination in American robins and gray catbirds. Ethology 112:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Veazey LM, Franklin EC, Kelley C, Rooney J, Frazer NL, Toonen RJ (2016) The implementation of rare events logistic regression to predict the distribution of mesophotic hard corals across the main Hawaiian islands. PeerJ 4:e2189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett ATD, Marshall NJ, Cuthill IC (1998) Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol: Sens Neural Behav Physiol 183:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams DO, Flaherty TJ, Jupe CL, Coleman SA, Marquez KA, Stanton JJ (2007) Beyond λ[lambda]max: transforming visible spectra into 24-bit color values. J Chem Educ 84:1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Animal Biology, School of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y NaturalesUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Department of Zoology and Laboratory of OrnithologyPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of BiologyLong Island University - PostNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations