Advertisement

Does host-absent vocalisation of common cuckoo chicks increase hosts’ food provisioning behaviour?

  • Marcel Honza
  • Milica Požgayová
  • Adéla Petrželková
  • Petr Procházka
Original Article

Abstract

Parent-absent vocalisation is produced by nestlings of several bird families when the parents are away from the nest. An analogous behaviour, host-absent vocalisation, has been found in some species of avian brood parasites and there are several explanations why this behaviour could have evolved. Using playback experiments, we examined whether polygynous great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) adjust their food provisioning behaviour in response to host-absent begging vocalisation uttered by the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) chicks. We found that both on monogamous and polygynous nests, host pair members responded to the broadcasted parasite begging signals by increasing their feeding rates; yet, they did not deliver larger volumes of food as a consequence of somewhat smaller prey brought per visit. Nevertheless, we propose that host-absent vocalisation of the common cuckoo chick may still represent a signal of hunger that may compensate for other, deficient components of parasite begging display. However, the efficiency of this signal may be limited by the foster parents’ provisioning abilities and local prey availability.

Significance statement

Bird chicks beg loudly for food when their parents are at the nest, as well as when the parents search for food elsewhere. The same applies to young parasites raised by their hosts. Experimental playback of host-absent begging calls of cuckoo chicks increased great reed warbler feeding frequency but had no effect on the volume of food delivered. Host-absent vocalisation may represent signal of hunger; however, its effectiveness may be limited by provisioning abilities of the hosts.

Keywords

Brood parasitism Parent-absent begging Parent–offspring conflict Vocal stimulus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank M. M. Abraham, R. Beňo, V. Brlík, M. Čapek, V. Jelínek, T. Karasová, J. Koleček, L. Kulísek, R. Piálková, R. Poláková, B. Prudík, K. Sosnovcová, P. Steidlová, M. Šulc and K. Žabková for their assistance in the field. We are grateful to the management of the Hodonín Fish Farm for permission to conduct the fieldwork on their grounds. Comments of M. Leonard and two anonymous referees improved the previous version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant number 17-12262S).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

To assess possible ethical impact of our experimental manipulation, we compared several aspects of bird behaviour related to food intake or conspicuousness to potential predators on the video recordings with and without the HAV and control playback, respectively. Cuckoo chicks received similar volumes of food per hour both before and after the playback (mean ± SD; cuckoo HAV, before: 15.10 ± 7.46, after: 15.18 ± 7.66, paired t test t = − 0.05, df = 28, P = 0.963; control background noise, before: 13.53 ± 6.19, after: 13.52 ± 7.78, paired t test t = 0.01, df = 14, P = 0.994). Hence, a short-term increase in food volume or provisioning rate in response to the HAV playback should not have had negative effects either on the cuckoo chicks or great reed warbler hosts. Predation rates of cuckoo chicks did not significantly differ among the groups of nests subjected to the playback of cuckoo HAV (10%, N = 26), control playback (27%, N = 15) or no playback (17%, N = 24; 2 × 3 Fisher exact probability test: P = 0.491). None of the nests were deserted due to the experimental or control treatment or any other reasons.

This study was carried out with the permission of the regional nature conservation authorities (permit numbers JMK: 115874/2013 and 38506/2016; MUHOCJ: 41433/2012/OŽP, 34437/2014/OŽP, and 14306/2016/OŽP). The fieldwork adhered to the animal care protocol (experimental project numbers 039/2011 AV ČR and 3030/ENV/17-169/630/17) and to the Czech Law on the Protection of Animals against Mistreatment (licence numbers CZ 01272 and CZ 01284).

References

  1. Abraham MM, Pozgayova M, Prochazka P, Pialkova R, Honza M (2015) Is there a sex-specific difference between parasitic chicks in begging behaviour? J Ethol 33:151–158Google Scholar
  2. Bartsch C, Weiss M, Kipper S (2012) The return of the intruder: immediate and later effects of different approach distances in a territorial songbird. Ethology 118:876–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  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. Budden AF, Wright J (2001) Falling on deaf ears: the adaptive significance of begging in the absence of a parent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulmer E, Celis P, Gil D (2008) Parent-absent begging: evidence for sibling honesty and cooperation in the spotless starling (Sturnus unicolor). Behav Ecol 19:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campobello D, Sealy SG (2009) Avian brood parasitism in a Mediterranean region: hosts and habitat preferences of common cuckoos Cuculus canorus. Bird Study 56:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotton PA, Kacelnik A, Wright J (1996) Chick begging as a signal: are nestlings honest? Behav Ecol 7:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Dearborn DC (1998) Begging behavior and food acquisition by brown-headed cowbird nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geltsch N, Hauber ME, Anderson MG, Bán M, Moskát C (2012) Competition with a host nestling for parental provisioning imposes recoverable costs on parasitic cuckoo chick’s growth. Behav Process 90:378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glassey B, Forbes S (2003) Why brown-headed cowbirds do not influence red-winged blackbird parent behaviour. Anim Behav 65:1235–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glutz von Blotzheim UN, Bauer KM (1980) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, vol. 9. AULA-Verlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  16. Godfray HCJ (1991) Signaling of need by offspring to their parents. Nature 352:328–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grim T, Honza M (2001) Does supernormal stimulus influence parental behaviour of the cuckoo’s host? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haff TM, Magrath RD (2011) Calling at a cost: elevated nestling calling attracts predators to active nests. Biol Lett 7:493–495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamer KC, Quillfeldt P, Masello JF, Fletcher KL (2006) Sex differences in provisioning rules: responses of Manx shearwaters to supplementary chick feeding. Behav Ecol 17:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauber ME (2003) Lower begging responsiveness of host versus parasitic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nestlings is related to species identity but not to early social experience. J Comp Psychol 117:24–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hauber ME, Moskát C (2008) Shared parental care is costly for nestlings of common cuckoos and their great reed warbler hosts. Behav Ecol 19:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauber ME, Ramsay CK (2003) Honesty in host-parasite communication signals: the case for begging by fledgling brown-headed cowbirds Molothrus ater. J Avian Biol 34:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinde CA, Kilner RM (2007) Negotiations within the family over the supply of parental care. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Jelínek V, Karasová T, Weidinger K, Procházka P, Honza M (2016) Do common cuckoo chicks suffer nest predation more than host nestlings? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1975–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jimeno B, Gil D (2015) Parent-absent calls are related to nestling reaction time and parental food allocation in the spotless starling. Behaviour 152:1413–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jimeno B, Muriel J, Pérez-Rodríguez L, Gil D (2014) Sexual differences in parental investment in response to parent-absent calls. Ethology 120:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnstone RA (1999) Signaling of need, sibling competition, and the cost of honesty. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96(22):12644–12649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kilner RM (2002) Sex differences in canary (Serinus canaria) provisioning rules. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kilner RM, Davies NB (1999) How selfish is a cuckoo chick? Anim Behav 58:797–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilner R, Johnstone RA (1997) Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of needs? Trends Ecol Evol 12:11–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Kölliker M, Richner H, Werner I, Heeb P (1998) Begging signals and biparental care: nestling choice between parental feeding locations. Anim Behav 55:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kölliker M, Brinkhof MWG, Heeb P, Fitze PS, Richner H (2000) The quantitative genetic basis of offspring solicitation and parental response in a passerine bird with biparental care. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2127–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leech SM, Leonard ML (1996) Is there an energetic cost to begging in nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor)? Proc R Soc Lond B 263:983–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leech SM, Leonard ML (1997) Begging and the risk of predation in nestling birds. Behav Ecol 8:644–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leisler B (1991) Acrocephalus arundinaceus (Linnaeus 1758) – Drosselrohrsänger. In: Glutz von Blotzheim UN, Bauer KM (eds) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, vol 12. AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 486–539Google Scholar
  39. Leonard ML, Horn AG (2001) Begging in the absence of parents by nestling tree swallows. Behav Ecol 12:501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonard ML, Horn AG, Mukhida A (2005) False alarms and begging in nestling birds. Anim Behav 69:701–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lichtenstein G (2001a) Low success of shiny cowbird chicks parasitizing rufous-bellied thrushes: a chick–chick competition or parental discrimination? Anim Behav 61:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lichtenstein G (2001b) Selfish begging by screaming cowbirds, a mimetic brood parasite of the bay-winged cowbird. Anim Behav 61:1151–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lorenzana JC, Sealy SG (1996) Are begging calls of generalist parasitic cowbirds adapted for brood parasitism? UFS (Delta Marsh). Annu Rep 31:85–93Google Scholar
  44. Magrath RD, Haff TM, Horn AG, Leonard ML (2010) Calling in the face of danger: predation risk and acoustic communication by parent birds and their offspring. Adv Stud Behav 41:187–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCarty JP (1996) The energetic cost of begging in nestling passerines. Auk 113:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Molnár B (1944) The cuckoo in the Hungarian plain. Aquila 51:100–112Google Scholar
  47. Moskát C, Honza M (2002) European cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism and hostʼs rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus population. Ibis 144:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Mitchell RD, Stairs GR (eds) Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, pp 154–177Google Scholar
  49. Požgayová M, Procházka P, Honza M (2013) Is shared male assistance with antiparasitic nest defence costly in the polygynous great reed warbler? Anim Behav 85:615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Požgayová M, Beňo R, Procházka P, Honza M (2015) Lazy males and hardworking females? Sexual conflict over parental care in a brood parasite host and its consequences for chick growth. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1053–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quillfeldt P, Maselo JF, Hamer KC (2004) Sex differences in provisioning rules and honest signalling of need in Manx sheawaters, Puffinus puffinus. Anim Behav 68:613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Quillfeldt P, Strange IJ, Segelbacher G, Maselo JF (2007) Male and female contributions to provisioning rates of thin-billed prions, Pachyptila belcheri, in the South Atlantic. J Ornithol 148:367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  54. Redondo T, Castro F (1992) Signalling of nutritional need by magpie nestlings. Ethology 92:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rivers JW (2007) Nest mate size, but not short-term need, influences begging behavior of a generalist brood parasite. Behav Ecol 18:222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rivers JW (2009) Parent-absent begging in the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater): the role of short-term need and nestmate size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rivers JW, Peer BD (2016) Relatedness constrains virulence in an obligate avian brood parasite. Ornithol Sci 15:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Romano A, Boncoraglio G, Rubolini D, Saino N (2013) Parent-absent signalling of need and its consequences for sibling competition in the barn swallow. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:851–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roulin A (2001) Food supply differentially affects sibling negotiation and competition in the barn owl (Tyto alba). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roulin A, Colliard C, Russier F, Fleury M, Grandjean V (2008) Sib–sib communication and the risk of prey theft in the barn owl Tyto alba. J Avian Biol 39:593–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA (2002) Begging for control: when are offspring solicitation behaviours honest? Trends Ecol Evol 17:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Royle NJ, Pike TW, Heeb P, Richner H, Kölliker M (2012) Offspring social network structure predicts fitness in families. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:4914–4922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saino N, Ninni P, Calza S, Martinelli R, De Bernard F, Møller AP (2000) Better red than dead: carotenoid-based mouth coloration reveals infection in barn swallow nestlings. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Samaš P, Rutila J, Grim T (2016) The common redstart as a suitable model to study cuckoo–host coevolution in a unique ecological context. BMC Evol Biol 16:255CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Sejberg D, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2000) Nestling provisioning in polygynous great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus): do males bring larger prey to compensate for fewer nest visits? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Soler M, Soler JJ (1999) The cuckoo chick tricks their reed warbler foster parents, but what about other host species? Trends Ecol Evol 14:296–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tanaka KD, Ueda K (2005) Horsfield’s hawk-cuckoo nestlings simulate multiple gapes for begging. Science 308:653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Weygoldt P (1980) Complex brood care and reproductive behaviour in captive poison-arrow frogs, Dendrobates pumilio O. Schmidt. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wyllie I (1981) The cuckoo. Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Honza
    • 1
  • Milica Požgayová
    • 1
  • Adéla Petrželková
    • 1
  • Petr Procházka
    • 1
  1. 1.The Czech Academy of SciencesInstitute of Vertebrate BiologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations