Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 11, pp 1975–1987 | Cite as

Do common cuckoo chicks suffer nest predation more than host nestlings?

  • Václav JelínekEmail author
  • Tereza Karasová
  • Karel Weidinger
  • Petr Procházka
  • Marcel Honza
Original Article

Abstract

Nestlings of brood parasites exhibit more intensive begging than offspring of their hosts to gain sufficient amount of food or competitive advantage over host nestlings. This begging behaviour should be costly because exuberant acoustic begging may more likely attract nest predators. However, to date, nobody has explored the survival of nests with and without chicks of brood parasites in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) host system. Here, we analysed an extensive dataset of 817 great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) and 788 reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) nests to explore the relationships between nest predation and parasitism status (parasitized vs. non-parasitized), nest contents (cuckoo chick vs. host nestlings) and age of nestlings. We found that although parasitized nests had higher predation rate than non-parasitized nests in the incubation stage, the effect of original parasitism status almost disappeared in the nestling stage. In both host species, nests with younger cuckoo chicks survived similarly to nests with host nestlings of the same age (till the ninth day of age). Later on, however, nest contents influenced nest predation in each species differently. While nests with older cuckoo chicks (from the ninth to the 17th day of age) did not survive worse that host nestlings in the great reed warbler, older cuckoos survived much worse than host nestlings in reed warbler nests. Finally, nest survival decreased with nestling age in all three species. Thus, it seems that common cuckoo chicks can be penalized for more intensive begging only in nests of smaller reed warbler hosts.

Significance statement

Parental feeding of young is in birds frequently accompanied by striking nestlings begging behaviour serving as a signal of their need. Brood parasites exhibit even more intense food solicitation than their hosts which may attract predators to the nest. However, this hypothesis has never been tested in a widely studied brood parasite species—the common cuckoo. Here, we analysed survival of more than 1600 nests of its two main host species. We found that nests containing older common cuckoo chicks were depredated more frequently than nests with host own nestlings only in the smaller reed warbler hosts but not in the larger and more aggressive great reed warblers. This shows that the intensity of begging could be costly in terms of nest predation at least in some common cuckoo host species.

Keywords

Brood parasitism Great reed warbler Nest survival Reed warbler 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Milica Požgayová, Miroslav Čapek, Marek M. Abraham, Radovan Beňo, Petra Baslerová, Lucie Halová, Jaroslav Koleček, Klára Morongová, Peter Samaš, Kateřina Sosnovcová, Zuzana Šebelíková and Michal Šulc for their assistance in the field; Zdeněk Faltýnek Fric for his help with the programme MARK; and Miloš Krist and anonymous referees for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We are also grateful to the managers of the Hodonín Fish Farm for the permission to conduct the fieldwork on their grounds.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant number P506/12/2404) and by the institutional support of Institute of Vertebrate Biology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i. (RVO: 68081766).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Bird catching, ringing and nest checking were conducted under licence (numbers 906, 1050 and 1058) and followed rules issued by the Czech Bird Ringing Centre.

References

  1. Astie AA, Reboreda JC (2006) Costs of egg punctures and parasitism by shiny cowbirds (Molothrus bonariensis) at creamy-bellied thrush (Turdus amaurochalinus) nests. Auk 123:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, et al. (2006) Rapid increase in cuckoo egg matching in a recently parasitized reed warbler population. J Evol Biol 19:1901–1910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bensch S (1996) Female mating status and reproductive success in the great reed warbler: is there a potential cost of polygyny that requires compensation? J Anim Ecol 65:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briskie J, Martin P, Martin T (1999) Nest predation and the evolution of nestling begging calls. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briskie JV, Naugler CT, Leech SM (1994) Begging intensity of nestling birds varies with sibling relatedness. Proc R Soc Lond B 258:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burhans DE, Dearborn D, Thompson F III, Faaborg J (2002) Factors affecting predation at songbird nests in old fields. J Wildl. Manage 66:240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Butchart SH, Kilner RM, Fuisz T, Davies NB (2003) Differences in the nestling begging calls of hosts and host-races of the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus. Anim Behav 65:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Čapek M, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Honza M (2010) Repeated presentations of the common cuckoo increase nest defense by the Eurasian reed warbler but do not induce it to make recognition errors. Condor 112:763–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chappell MA, Bachman GC (2002) Energetic costs of begging behaviour. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007) Do cuckoos choose nests of great reed warblers on the basis of host egg appearance? J Evol Biol 20:1218–1222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cramp S (1992) The birds of the western Palearctic, vol VI. Warblers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. T. And a.D. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies NB (2011) Cuckoo adaptations: trickery and tuning. J Zool 284:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Kilner RM, Noble DG (1998) Nestling cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, exploit hosts with begging calls that mimic a brood. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies NB, Madden JR, Butchart SHM (2004) Learning fine-tunes a specific response of nestlings to the parental alarm calls of their own species. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2297–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies NB, Madden JR, Butchart SHM, Rutila J (2006) A host-race of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus with nestlings attuned to the parental alarm calls of the host species. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dearborn DC (1998) Begging behavior and food acquisition by brown-headed cowbird nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dearborn DC (1999) Brown-headed cowbird nestling vocalizations and risk of nest predation. Auk 116:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dearborn DC, Lichtenstein G (2002) Begging behaviour and host exploitation in parasitic cowbirds. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dinsmore SJ, White GC, Knopf FL (2002) Advanced techniques for modelling avian nest survival. Ecology 83:3476–3488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gärtner K (1981) Das Wegnehmen von Wirtsvogeleiern durch den Kuckuck (Cuculus canorus). Ornithol Mitt 33:115–131Google Scholar
  23. Gehringer F (1979) Etude sur le pillage par le Coucou, Cuculus canorus, des oeufs de la Rousserolle effarvatte. Nos Oiseaux 35:1–16Google Scholar
  24. Glutz von Blotzheim UN, Bauer KM (1980) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  25. Gochfeld M (1979) Brood parasite and host coevolution: interactions between shiny cowbirds and two species of meadowlarks. Am Nat 113:855–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Götmark F (1992) The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 63–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grim T (2006) Cuckoo growth performance in parasitized and unused hosts: not only host size matters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grim T (2007) Experimental evidence for chick discrimination without recognition in a brood parasite host. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grim T (2008) Wing-shaking and wing-patch as nestling begging strategies: their importance and evolutionary origins. J Ethol 26:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grim T, Kleven O, Mikulica O (2003) Nestling discrimination without recognition: a possible defence mechanism for hosts towards cuckoo parasitism? Biol Lett 270:S73–S75Google Scholar
  31. Haff T, Magrath R (2010) Vulnerable but not helpless: nestlings are fine-tuned to cues of approaching danger. Anim Behav 79:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haff T, Magrath R (2011) Calling at a cost: elevated nestling calling attracts predators to active nests. Biol Lett 7:493–495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Hannon S, Wilson S, McCallum C (2009) Does cowbird parasitism increase predation risk to American redstart nests? Oikos 118:1035–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haskell D (1994) Experimental evidence that nestling begging behaviour incurs a cost due to nest predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haskell D (1999) The effect of predation on begging-call evolution in nestling wood warblers. Anim Behav 57:893–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Haskell D (2002) Begging behaviour and nest predation. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hauber M (2000) Nest predation and cowbird parasitism in song sparrows. J Field Ornithol 71:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hauber M (2014) Mafia or farmer? Coevolutionary consequences of retaliation and farming as predatory strategies upon host nests by avian brood parasites. Coevolution 2:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holen ØH, Saetre GP, Slagsvold T, Stenseth NC (2001) Parasites and supernormal manipulation. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2551–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Honza M, Šulc M, Jelínek V, Požgayová M, Procházka P (2014) Brood parasites lay eggs matching the appearance of host clutches. Proc R Soc Lond B 281: 20132665Google Scholar
  41. Ibáñez-Álamo J, Arco L, Soler M (2012) Experimental evidence for a predation cost of begging using active nests and real chicks. J Ornithol 153:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Janisch M (1948) Fight between cuckoo Cuculus C. canorus L. and great reed warbler Acrocephalus A. arundinaceus L. Aquila 55:291Google Scholar
  43. Jelínek V, Procházka P, Požgayová M, Honza M (2014) Common cuckoos Cuculus canorus change their nest-searching strategy according to the number of available host nests. Ibis 156:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kilner RM (2001) A growth cost of begging in captive canary chicks. P Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11394–11398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kilner RM, Davies NB (1999) How selfish is a cuckoo chick? Anim Behav 58:797–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999) Signals of need in parent–offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 397:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kleven O, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Honza M (1999) Host species affects the growth rate of cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) chicks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2007) Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol 18:1082–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leech S, Leonard M (1997) Begging and the risk of predation in nestling birds. Behav Ecol 8:1990–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leonard M, Horn A, Porter J (2003) Does begging affect growth in nestling tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lichtenstein G (1998) Parasitism by shiny cowbirds of rufous-bellied thrushes. Condor 100:680–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Madden JR, Kilner RM, Davies NB (2005) Nestling responses to adult food and alarm calls: 2. Cowbirds and red-winged blackbirds reared by eastern phoebe hosts. Anim Behav 70:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Massoni V, Reboreda J (1998) Costs of brood parasitism and the lack of defences on the yellow-winged blackbird - shiny cowbird system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mayer-Gross H, Crick HQP, Greenwood JJD (1997) The effect of observers visiting the nests of passerines: an experimental study. Bird Study 44:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maynard-Smith JM, Harper D (2000) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. McDonald P, Wilson D, Evans C (2009) Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing. Behav Ecol 20:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mermoz M, Reboreda J (1998) Nesting success in Brown-and-yellow Marshbirds: effects of timing, nest site, and brood parasitism. Auk 115:871–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mérő TO, Žuljević A (2014) Great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Acrocephalus 34:130Google Scholar
  59. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Hagen L, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH (2000) Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis 142:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Molnár B (1944) The cuckoo in the Hungarian plain. Aquila 51:100–112Google Scholar
  61. Moskát C, Honza M (2000) Effect of nest and nest site characteristics on the risk of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Ecography 23:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Grady DR, Hill DP, Barclay RMR (1996) Nest visitation by humans does not increase predation on chestnut-collared longspur eggs and young. J Field Ornithol 67:275–280Google Scholar
  63. Øien I, Honza M, Moksnes A, Roskaft E (1996) The risk of parasitism in relation to the distance from reed warbler nests to cuckoo perches. J Anim Ecol 65:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ortega CP, Ortega JC (2003) Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism on warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus) in Southwest Colorado. Auk 120:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ortega CP, Ortega JC, Rapp CA, Vorisek S, Backensto SA, Palmer DW (1997) Effect of research activity on the success of American robin nests. J Wildl. Manage 61:948–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Platzen D, Magrath R (2004) Parental alarm calls suppress nestling vocalization. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1271–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Požgayová M, Procházka P, Honza M (2009) Sex-specific defence behaviour against brood parasitism in a host with female-only incubation. Behav Process 81:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Redondo T (1993) Exploitation of host mechanism for parental care by avian brood parasites. Etología 3:235–297Google Scholar
  69. Redondo T, Zuñiga JM (2002) Dishonest begging and host manipulation by Clamator cuckoos. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 389–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rodríguez-Giroñés M, Zúñiga J, Redondo T (2001) Effects of begging on growth rates of nestling chicks. Behav Ecol 12:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Meilvang D, Bičík V, Jemelíková J, Honza M (2002) No evidence for recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol 33:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schulze-Hagen K (1992) Parasitierung und Brutverluste durch den Kuckuck (Cuculus canorus) bei Teich- und Sumpfrohrsänger (Acrocephalus scirpaceus, A. palustris) in Mittel- und Westeuropa. J Ornithol 133:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Šicha V, Procházka P, Honza M (2007) Hopeless solicitation? Host-absent vocalization in the common cuckoo has no effect on feeding rate of reed warblers. J Ethol 25:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soler M, Soler JJ, Martinez JG, Møller AP (1995) Magpie host manipulation by great spotted cuckoos: evidence for an avian mafia? Evolution 49:770–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Moreno J (1999) Begging behaviour and its energetic cost in great spotted cuckoo and magpie host chicks. Can J Zool 77:1794–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stumpf KJ, Theimer TC, McLeod MA, Koronkiewicz TJ (2012) Distance from riparian edge reduces brood parasitism of southwestern willow flycatchers, whereas parasitism increases nest predation risk. J Wildl. Manage 76:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trnka A, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Capek M, Honza M (2016) Chemical defence in avian brood parasites: production and function of repulsive secretions in common cuckoo chicks. J Avian Biol 47:288–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weidinger K (2008) Nest monitoring does not increase nest predation in open-nesting songbirds: inference from continuous nest-survival data. Auk 125:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120–S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wyllie I (1975) Study of cuckoos and reed warblers. Brit Birds 68:369–378Google Scholar
  81. Wyllie I (1981) The cuckoo. Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Zahavi A (1979) Parasitism and nest predation in parasitic cuckoos. Am Nat 113:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Václav Jelínek
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tereza Karasová
    • 1
  • Karel Weidinger
    • 3
  • Petr Procházka
    • 1
  • Marcel Honza
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Zoology and Laboratory of Ornithology, Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations