Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 819–828 | Cite as

Egg arrangement in avian clutches covaries with the rejection of foreign eggs

  • Lenka Polačiková
  • Fugo Takasu
  • Bård G. Stokke
  • Arne Moksnes
  • Eivin Røskaft
  • Phillip Cassey
  • Mark E. Hauber
  • Tomáš Grim
Original Paper


In birds, the colour, maculation, shape, and size of their eggs play critical roles in discrimination of foreign eggs in the clutch. So far, however, no study has examined the role of egg arrangement within a clutch on host rejection responses. We predicted that individual females which maintain consistent egg arrangements within their clutch would be better able to detect and reject foreign eggs than females without a consistent egg arrangement (i.e. whose eggs change positions more often across incubation). We tested this “egg arrangement hypothesis” in blackbirds (Turdus merula) and song thrush (T. philomelos). Both species are suitable candidates for research on egg rejection, because they show high inter-individual variation and individual repeatability in egg rejection responses. As predicted, using our custom-defined metrics of egg arrangement, rejecter females’ clutches showed significantly more consistent patterns in egg arrangement than acceptor females’ clutches. Only parameters related to blunt pole showed consistent differences between rejecters and acceptors. This finding makes biological sense because it is already known that song thrush use blunt pole cues to reject foreign eggs. We propose that a disturbance of the original egg arrangement pattern by the laying parasite may alert host females that maintain a consistent egg arrangement to the risk of having been parasitized. Once alerted, these hosts may shift their discrimination thresholds to be more restrictive so as to reject a foreign egg with higher probability. Future studies will benefit from experimentally testing whether these two and other parasitized rejecter host species may rely on the use of consistent egg arrangements as a component of their anti-parasitic defence mechanisms.


Anti-parasite defences Brood parasitism Egg arrangement Foreign egg recognition 



Comments by two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript. We thank to P. Samaš for help with the fieldwork. The study was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program (RGY69/07 to TG, PC and MEH; RGY83/12 to MEH and TG), and the Research Council of Norway (grant no. 218144) to BGS. PC is an ARC Future Fellow.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Boulton RL, Cassey P (2012) How avian incubation behaviour influences egg surface temperature: relationships with egg position, development and clutch size. J Avian Biol 43:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Evans KL (2006) Changes in egg size of exotic passerines introduced to New Zealand. Notornis 52:243–246Google Scholar
  3. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, Cowbirds and other Cheats. London, T and AD PoyserGoogle Scholar
  4. de la Colina MA, Pompilio L, Hauber ME, Reboreda JC, 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 15:881–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Enemar A, Arheimer O (1980) Trans-illumination of passerine bird eggs in field studies on clutch-size and incubation. Ornis Scand 11:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grim T, Rutila J, Cassey P, Hauber ME (2009) The cost of virulence: an experimental study of egg eviction by brood parasitic chicks. Behav Ecol 20:1138–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 80:508–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hale K, Briskie JV (2007) Response of introduced European birds in New Zealand to experimental brood parasitism. J Avian Biol 38:198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauber ME (2003) Hatching asynchrony, nestling competition, and the cost of interspecific brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 14:224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hauber ME, Moskát C, Bán M (2006) Experimental shift in hosts’ acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs. Biol Lett 2:177–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Honza M, Polačiková L, Procházka P (2007) UV and green parts of the colour spectra affect egg rejection in the song thrush (Turdus philomelos). Biol J Linn Soc 92:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoyt DF (1979) Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96:73–77Google Scholar
  13. Johnson DH (2002) The importance of replication in wildlife research. J Wildl Manag 66:919–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lahti DC, Lahti AR (2002) How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Anim Behav 63:1135–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lessells CM, Poelman EH, Mateman AC, Cassey P (2006) Consistent feeding positions of great tit parents. Anim Behav 72:1249–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyon B (2007) Mechanism of egg recognition in defenses against conspecific brood parasitism: american coots (Fulica americana) know their own eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marchetti K (2000) Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim Behav 59:877–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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 213:1976–1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perrins C (1998) The complete birds of the western palearctic on CD ROM. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Polačiková L, Grim T (2010) Blunt egg pole holds cues for alien egg discrimination: experimental evidence. J Avian Biol 41:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polačiková L, Honza M, Procházka P, Topercer J, Stokke BG (2007) Colour characteristics of the blunt part of blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) eggs: possible cues for egg recognition. Anim Behav 74:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polačiková L, Stokke BG, Procházka P, Honza P, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2010) The role of blunt egg pole characteristics for recognition of eggs in the song thrush (Turdus philomelos). Behaviour 147:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polačiková L, Hauber ME, Procházka P, Cassey P, Honza M, Grim T (2011) A sum of its individual parts? Relative contributions of different eggshell regions to intraclutch variation in birds. J Avian Biol 42:370–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am Nat 133:407–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samaš P, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Grim T (2011) Repeatability of foreign egg rejection: testing the assumptions of co-evolutionary theory. Ethology 117:606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Samaš P, Grim T, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Weidinger K, Evans KL (2013) Ecological predictors of reduced avian reproductive investment in the southern hemisphere. Ecography. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07927.x Google Scholar
  28. Shettleworth SJ (2001) Animal cognition and animal behaviour. Anim Behav 61:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soler JJ, Cuervo JJ, Møller AP, de Lope F (1998) Nest building is a sexually selected behaviour in the barn swallow. Anim Behav 56:1435–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Soler JJ, Soler M, Møller AP (2000) Host recognition of parasite eggs and the physical appearance of host eggs: the magpie and its brood parasite the great spotted cuckoo. Etología 8:9–16Google Scholar
  31. Stokke BG, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2007) The importance of clutch characteristics and learning for anti-parasite adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Evolution 61:2212–2228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tvardíková K, Fuchs R (2010) Tits use amodal completion in predator recognition: a field experiment. Anim Cogn 13:609–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenka Polačiková
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fugo Takasu
    • 2
    • 4
  • Bård G. Stokke
    • 2
    • 5
  • Arne Moksnes
    • 2
    • 5
  • Eivin Røskaft
    • 2
    • 5
  • Phillip Cassey
    • 6
  • Mark E. Hauber
    • 7
    • 8
  • Tomáš Grim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Laboratory of OrnithologyPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  2. 2.Centre for Advanced Study (CAS)OsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Information and Computer SciencesNara Women’s UniversityNaraJapan
  5. 5.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  6. 6.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  7. 7.Department of Psychology, Hunter College and the Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkAlbanyUSA
  8. 8.School of PsychologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations