Animal Cognition

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 377–386 | Cite as

Conflict between egg recognition and egg rejection decisions in common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) hosts

  • Csaba MoskátEmail author
  • Márk E. Hauber
Original Paper


Common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) are obligate brood parasites, laying eggs into nests of small songbirds. The cuckoo hatchling evicts all eggs and young from a nest, eliminating hosts’ breeding success. Despite the consistently high costs of parasitism by common cuckoos, great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) hosts sometime accept and other times reject parasitic eggs. To explore the cognitive basis of this seemingly maladaptive variation in host responses, we documented differences in egg rejection rates within 1-day periods just before and during the egg-laying cycle across host nests. Hosts rejected cuckoo eggs at 28% of nests during the pre-egg-laying stage, but when cuckoos exchanged the first host egg with the parasite egg, rejections increased to 75%. Even later, when several host eggs remained in a nest after parasitism, rejection rate fell to 37.5%. Experimental parasitism with conspecific eggs on the first and second day of host laying showed a similar directional change in relative rejection rates, dropping from 35 to 0%. Mistakes in egg discrimination (ejection error and ejection cost) were observed mostly in the latter part of the laying cycle, mainly when nests contained 5–6 eggs. These correlational and experimental patterns of egg rejection support a cognitive process of egg discrimination through several shifts in hosts’ optimal acceptance thresholds of foreign eggs. The results are also consistent with the evolution of foreign egg rejection in the context of nest-sanitation (i.e. the removal of foreign objects). Our results suggest that common cuckoo hosts may recognize more eggs than they reject. This implies that the experience of the host with one or more of its own eggs in the clutch is a key factor in rejecting parasite eggs by allowing inspection and learning about their own clutch.


Brood parasitism Egg discrimination Decision-making Recognition system Learning 



We are indebted to Tomas Grim, the editor, and several referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. The study was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA, grant no. T48397 to CM), and the National Geographic Society, the University of Auckland Research Council, and the New Zealand Marsden Fund (to MEH). The Duna-Ipoly National Park provided permission for research.


  1. Alvarez F (1999) Attractive non-mimetic stimuli in cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs. Ibis 141:142–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundsen T, Brobakken PT, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2002) Rejection of cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs in relation to female age in the bluethroat Luscinia svecica. J Avian Biol 33:366–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2006) Egg rejection in marsh warblers (Acrocephalus palustris) parasitized by common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). Auk 123:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avilés JM, Rutila J, Møller AP (2005) Should the redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus accept or reject cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avilés JM, Soler JJ, Soler M, Møller AP (2004) Rejection of parasitic eggs in relation to egg appearance in magpies. Anim Behav 67:951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Åsmul M, Møller AP (2006) Rapid increase in cuckoo egg matching in a recently parasitised reed warbler population. J Evol Biol 19:1901–1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Møller AP (2007) Environmental conditions influence egg color of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and their parasite, the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bártol I, Karcza Z, Moskát C, Røskaft E, Kisbenedek T (2002) 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 33:420–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateson M, Healy SD (2005) Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 20:659–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bednekoff PA, Balda RP (1997) Clark’s nutcracker spatial memory: many errors might not be due to forgetting. Anim Behav 54:691–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007a) Host intra-clutch variation, cuckoo egg matching and egg rejection by great reed warblers. Naturwissenschaften (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007b) Do cuckoos choose nests of great reed warblers on the basis of host egg appearance? J Evol Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. T. A. D. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies NB, Brooke M de L (1988) Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav 36:262–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Brooke M de L (1989) An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo. Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol 58:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies NB, Brooke M de L, Kacelnik A (1996) Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether Reed Warblers should accept or reject mimetic Cuckoo eggs. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 263:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke M de L, Davies NB, Nakamura H (2000) Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the common cuckoo. Nature 407:183–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gosler AG, Barnett PR, Reynolds SJ (2000) Inheritance and variation in eggshell patterning in the great tit Parus major. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 267:2469–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grim T (2005) Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not? Biol J Linnean Soc 84:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grim T (2006) The evolution of nestling discrimination by hosts of parasitic birds: why is rejection so rare? Evol Ecol Res 8:785–802Google Scholar
  21. Grim T, Kleven O, Mikulica O (2003) Nestling discrimination without recognition: a possible defence mechanism for hosts towards cuckoo parasitism? Proc Royal Soc London B 270:S73–S75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauber ME (2001) Site selection and repeatability in brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism of eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) nests. Can J Zool 79:1518–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauber ME, Kilner RM (2007) Who mimics whom? Communication, co-evolution, and chick mimicry in parasitic finches. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauber ME, Moskát C, Bán M (2006) Experimental shift in hosts’ acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs. Biol Lett 2:177–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauber ME, Sherman PW, Paprika D (2000) Self-referent phenotype matching in a brood parasite: the armpit effect in brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Anim Cogn 3:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauber ME, Yeh PJ, Roberts JOL (2004) Patterns and coevolutionary consequences of repeated brood parasitism. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271:S317–S320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holen ØH, Johnstone RA (2004) The evolution of mimicry under constraints. Amer Natur 164:598–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holen ØH, Johnstone RA (2006) Context-dependent discrimination and the evolution of mimicry. Amer Natur 167:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Honza M, Kuiper SM, Cherry MI (2005) Behaviour of African turdid hosts towards experimental parasitism with artificial red-chested cuckoo Cuculus solitarius eggs. J Avian Biol 36:517–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Honza M, Moskát C (2005) Antiparasite behaviour in response to experimental brood parasitism in the great reed warbler: a comparison of single and multiple parasitism. Ann Zool Fennici 42:627–633Google Scholar
  32. Honza M, Procházka P, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Capek M Jr, Mrlík V (2004) Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoo? J Ethol 22:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2002) Behaviour of female common cuckoos Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav 64:861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoover JP, Yasukawa K, Hauber ME (2006) Spatially and temporally structured avian brood parasitism affects the fitness benefits of hosts’ rejection strategies. Anim Behav 72:881–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kattan GH (1997) Shiny cowbirds follow the “shotgun” strategy of brood parasitism. Anim Behav 53:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koenig WD, Mumme RL (1987) Population ecology of the cooperatively breeding acorn woodpecker. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Kosciuch K, Parker T, Sandercock B (2006) Nest desertion by a cowbird host: an anti-parasite behavior or a response to egg loss? Behav Ecol 17:917–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krüger O, Davies NB (2002) The evolution of cuckoo parasitism: a comparative analysis. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM (2003) Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature 422:157–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langmore NE, Kilner RM, Butchart SHM, Maurer G, Davies NB, Cockburn A, Macgregor N, Peters A, Magrath MJL, Dowling D (2005) The evolution of egg rejection by cuckoo hosts in Australia and Europe. Behav Ecol 16:686–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liebert AE, Starks PT (2004) The action component of recognition systems: a focus on the response. Ann Zool Fennici 41:747–764Google Scholar
  42. Lindholm AK, Thomas RJ (2000) Differences between populations of reed warblers in defenses against brood parasitism. Behaviour 137:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lotem A (1993) Learning to recognize nestlings is maleadaptive for cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts. Nature 362:743–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lotem A, Nakamura H (1998) Evolutionary equilibria in avian brood parasitism: an alternative to the “arms race-evolutionary lag” concept. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 223–235Google Scholar
  45. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1992) Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol 3:128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1995) Constrains on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim Behav 49:1185–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lovászi P, Moskát C (2004) Break-down of arms race between the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) and common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Behaviour 141:245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marchetti K (1992) Costs of host defence and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 248:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marchetti K (2000) Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim Behav 59:877–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martín-Gálvez D, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Krupa AP, Richard M, Soler M, Møller AP, Burke T (2006) A quantitative trait locus for recognition of foreign eggs in the host of a brood parasite. J Evol Biol 19:543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mateo JM (2004) Recognition systems and biological organization: the perception component of social recognition. Ann Zool Fennici 41:729–745Google Scholar
  52. McLean IG, Maloney RF (1998) Brood parasitism, recognition, and response: the options. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  53. Moksnes A (1992) Egg recognition in chaffinches and bramblings. Anim Behav 44:993–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1989) Adaptations of meadow pipits to parasitism by the common cuckoo. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC (1990) Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116:64–89Google Scholar
  56. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Hagen LG, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH (2000) Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis 142:247–258Google Scholar
  57. Moskát C (2005) Nest defence and egg rejection in great reed warblers over the breeding cycle: are they synchronised with the risk of brood parasitism? Ann Zool Fennici 42:579–586Google Scholar
  58. Moskát C, Honza M (2002) European cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism and host’s rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus population. Ibis 144:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moskát C, Barta Z, Hauber ME, Honza M (2006) High synchrony of egg laying in common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) and their great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) hosts. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moskát C, Székely T, Kisbenedek T, Karcza Z, Bártol I (2003) The importance of nest cleaning in egg rejection behaviour of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus. J Avian Biol 34:16–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Edvardsen E, Honza M, Kleven O, Rudolfsen, G (1999) Conditional host responses to cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism. In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd Int. Ornithol. Congr., Durban. Bird-Life South Africa, Johannesburg, pp 3125–3145Google Scholar
  62. Orians IJ, Røskaft E, Beletsky LD (1989) Do brown-headed cowbirds lay their eggs at random in the nests of red-winged blackbirds? Wilson Bull 101:599–605Google Scholar
  63. Palomino JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Soler M, Soler JJ (1998) Females are responsible for ejection of cuckoo eggs in the rufous bush robin. Anim Behav 56:131–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parejo D, Avilés JM (2007) Do avian brood parasites eavesdrop on heterospecific sexual signals revealing host quality? A review of the evidence. Anim Cogn (in press)Google Scholar
  65. Payne R (2005) Cuckoos, Cuculidae. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  66. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am Nat 133:407–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rensch B (1925) Verhalten von Singvogeln bei Aenderung des Geleges. Ornithol Monatschr 33:169–173Google Scholar
  68. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Lotem A (1999) How to detect a cuckoo egg: a signal-detection theory model for recognition and learning. Am Nat 153:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Røskaft E, Moksnes E, Meilvang D, Bicík V, Jemelíková J, Honza M (2002) No evidence for recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol 33:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rothstein SI (1974) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk 91:796–807Google Scholar
  71. Rothstein SI (1975) Mechanism of egg recognition: do birds know their own eggs? Anim Behav 23:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rothstein SI (1977) Cowbird parasitism and egg recognition of the northern oriole. Wilson Bull 89:21–32Google Scholar
  73. Rothstein SI (1982a) Success and failures in avian egg and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimal reasoning. Amer Zool 22:547–560Google Scholar
  74. Rothstein SI (1982b) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sealy SG (1995) Burial of cowbird eggs by parasitized yellow warblers: an empirical and experimental study. Anim Behav 49:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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 19:1585–1594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Servedio MR, Lande R (2003) Coevolution of an avian host and its parasitic cuckoo. Evolution 57:1164–1175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 4th edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 69–96Google Scholar
  79. Soler JJ, Avilés JM, Soler M, Møller AP (2003) Evolution of host egg mimicry in a brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo. Biol J Linnean Soc 79:551–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Soler M, Soler JJ (1999) Innate versus learned recognition of conspecifics in great spotted cuckoos Clamator glandarius. Anim Cogn 2:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Soler M, Martín-Vivaldi M, Pérez-Contreras T (2002) Identification of the sex responsible for recognition and the method of ejection of parasitic eggs in some potential common cuckoo hosts. Ethology 108:1093–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Southern HN (1954) Mimicry in cuckoos’ eggs. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen and Unwin, London, pp 219–232Google Scholar
  83. Stokke BG, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G (2002) Costs associated with recognition and rejection of parasitic eggs in two European passerines. Behaviour 139:629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2005) The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithol Sci 4:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stokke BG, Rudolfsen G, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2004) Rejection of conspecific eggs in chaffinches: the effect of age and clutch characteristics. Ethology 110:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Takasu F (2003) Co-evolutionary dynamic of egg appearance in avian brood parasitism. Evol Ecol Res 5:345–36Google Scholar
  87. Underwood TJ, Sealy SG (2002) Adaptive significance of egg coloration. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian incubation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–298Google Scholar
  88. Victoria JK (1972) Clutch characteristics and egg discriminative ability of the African weaverbird Ploceus cucullatus. Ibis 114:367–376Google Scholar
  89. Vogl W, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Honza M (2004) Habitat and space use of European cuckoo females during the egg laying period. Behaviour 141:881–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vogl W, Taborsky M, Taborsky B, Teuschl Y, Honza M (2002) Cuckoo females preferentially use specific habitats when searching for host nests. Anim Behav 64:841–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Waite TA (2002) Interruptions improve choice performance in gray jays: prolonged information processing versus minimization of costly errors. Anim Cogn 5:209–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Welbergen J, Komdeur J, Kats R Berg M (2001) Egg discrimination in the Australian reed warbler (Acrocephalus australis): rejection response toward model and conspecific eggs depending on timing and mode of artificial parasitism. Behav Ecol 12:8–15Google Scholar
  93. Wyllie I (1981) The cuckoo. Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Ecology Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, c/o Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Ecology, Evolution, and Behaviour, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations