Journal of Ethology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 175–180 | Cite as

Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoo?

  • Marcel Honza
  • Petr Procházka
  • Bård G. Stokke
  • Arne Moksnes
  • Eivin Røskaft
  • Miroslav ČapekJr
  • Vojtěch Mrlík
Article

Abstract

Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla reject artificial cuckoo eggs, and their eggs vary little in appearance within clutches, whereas among clutches eggs vary considerably. Low variation within clutches facilitates discrimination of parasitic eggs, whereas high variation among clutches makes it harder for the cuckoo to mimic the eggs of a certain host species. These traits have most probably evolved as counteradaptations against brood parasitism by the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus, even though blackcaps are not regularly parasitised today. In this study, we investigated how fine-tuned the rejection of parasitic eggs is in this species by introducing three types of eggs into their nests: a real non-mimetic egg the approximate size of a cuckoo egg, an artificial mimetic egg the size of a cuckoo egg and a real conspecific egg. As the rejection frequency of both mimetic and non-mimetic artificial cuckoo eggs has been shown to be high in previous studies, the variation in rejection behaviour between individuals is low, indicating that most individuals within the population are able to reject parasitic eggs. Thus, we predict that (1) the intraclutch variation in egg appearance should be generally low in all individuals, and that (2) regarding conspecific eggs, rejection decisions should be highly dependent on the degree of mimicry between parasitic and host eggs. We found support for these predictions, which indicates that due to their highly sophisticated countermeasures against brood parasitism, blackcaps can probably be regarded as current winners of the arms race with the common cuckoo. Furthermore, the high and consistent rejection frequency of cuckoo eggs found throughout Europe for this species supports the spatial habitat structure hypothesis, which claims that woodland-nesting species breeding near trees, like blackcaps, presumably experienced a high level of parasitism throughout their range in the past and, therefore, their rejection behaviour, once evolved, spread rapidly to all populations.

Keywords

Blackcap Brood parasitism Cuckoo Cuculus canorus Egg discrimination Egg recognition Sylvia atricapilla Spatial habitat structure 

References

  1. Berthold P, Solenen T (1997) Sylvia atricapilla—Blackcap. In: Hagemeijer WJM, Blair MJ (eds) The EBCC atlas of european breeding birds: their distribution and abundance. T & AD Poyser, London, pp 600–601Google Scholar
  2. Braa AT, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1992) Adaptations of Bramblings and Chaffinches towards parasitism by the Common Cuckoo. Anim Behav 43:67–78Google Scholar
  3. Briskie JV, Sealy SG, Hobson, KA (1992) Behavioral defences against avian brood parasitism in sympatric and allopatric host populations. Evolution 46:334–340Google Scholar
  4. Čapek W (1910) Einiges über die Fortpflanzungsgeschichte des Kuckucks aus Mähren. Berichte 5 Int Ornithol Kongreß Berlin, pp 579–582Google Scholar
  5. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 58:207–224Google Scholar
  7. 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 R Soc Lond B 263:925–931Google Scholar
  8. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:489–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Flajšhans V (1928) Klaret a jeho družina—texty glossované. Česká Akademie, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  10. Géroudet P (1950) Quels sont les hôtes du Coucou? Nos Oiseaux 1950:201–208Google Scholar
  11. 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 407:183–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Glue D, Murray E (1984) Cuckoo hosts in Britain, vol 134. BTO News, p 5Google Scholar
  13. Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG (2001) How are different common cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg morphs maintained? An evaluation of different hypotheses. Ardea 89:341–352Google Scholar
  14. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121Google Scholar
  15. Lindholm AK, Thomas RJ (2000) Differences between populations of Reed Warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour 137:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1992) Rejection of Cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol 3:128–132Google Scholar
  17. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1995) Constraints on egg discrimination and Cuckoo—host co-evolution. Anim Behav 49:1185–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lucanus FR von (1921) Zur Frage der Mimikry der Kuckuckseier. J Ornithol 69:239–258Google Scholar
  19. Makatsch W (1937) Der Brutparasitismus der Kuckucksvögel. Quelle & Meyer, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  20. Makatsch W (1955) Der Brutparasitismus in der Vogelwelt. Neumann, RadebeulGoogle Scholar
  21. Malchevsky AS (1958) O biologicheskih rasah obyknovennoy kukushki (Cuculus canorus L.) na territorii evropeyskoy chasti SSSR. Zool Zhurn 37:87–95Google Scholar
  22. Malchevsky AS (1987) Kukushka i ee vospitateli. Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta, LeningradGoogle Scholar
  23. Marchetti K (2000) Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim Behav 59:877–883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McLean IG, Maloney RF (1998) Brood parasitism, recognition, and response. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  25. Moksnes A (1992) Egg recognition in Chaffinches and Bramblings. Anim Behav 44:993–995Google Scholar
  26. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1989) Adaptations of meadow pipits to parasitism by the common cuckoo. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:25–30Google Scholar
  27. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1992) Responses of some rare Cuckoo hosts to mimetic model Cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand 23:17–23Google Scholar
  28. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1995) Egg-morphs and host preference in the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of Cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool (Lond) 236:625–648Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Mørkved Solli M (1994) Documenting puncture ejection of parasitic eggs by Chaffinches Fringilla coelebs and Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla. Fauna Norv Ser C 17:115–118Google Scholar
  31. Moltoni E (1951) Le specie di uccelli nel cui nido vengono deposte in Italia le uova dal Cuculo. Riv Ital Ornitol 21:75–78Google Scholar
  32. Moskát C, Szentpetéri J, Bárta Z (2002) Adaptations by great reed warblers brood parasitism: a comparison of populations in sympatry and allopatry with the Common Cuckoo. Behaviour 139:1313–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1995) Evolution of variation in egg color and marking pattern in European passerines: adaptations in a coevolutionary arms race with the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol 6:166–174Google Scholar
  34. 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, Slowtow RH (eds) Proc 22 Int Ornithol Congr , vol 22, pp 3125–3145Google Scholar
  35. Procházka P, Honza M (2003) Do Common Whitethroats discriminate against alien eggs? J Ornithol 144:354–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Røskaft E, Moksnes A (1998) Coevolution between brood parasites and their hosts. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 236–254Google Scholar
  37. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Bičík V, Moskát C (2002a) Aggression to dummy cuckoos by potential European cuckoo hosts. Behaviour 139:613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Moskát C, Honza M (2002b) The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos. Behav Ecol 13:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Rothstein SI (1990) A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rothstein SI (2001) Relic behaviours, coevolution and the retention versus loss of host defences after episodes of avian brood parasitism. Anim Behav 61:95–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Soler JJ, Møller AP (1996) A comparative analysis of the evolution of variation in appearance of eggs of European passerines in relation to brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 7:89–94Google Scholar
  43. Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Pérez-Contreras T, Møller AP (1998) Micro-evolutionary change and population dynamics of a brood parasite and its primary host: the intermittent arms race hypothesis. Oecologia 117:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Soler M, Møller AP (1999) Genetic and geographic variation in rejection behavior of cuckoo eggs by European magpie populations: an experimental test of rejecter-gene flow. Evolution 53:947–956Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Honza M (1999) Rejection of artificial Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs in relation to variation in egg appearance among Reed Warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus). Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stokke, BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2002a) Obligate brood parasites as selective agents for evolution of egg appearance in passerine birds. Evolution 56:199–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stokke BG, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G (2002b) Costs associated with recognition and rejection of parasitic eggs in two European passerines. Behaviour 139:629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokke BG, Rudolfsen G, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2004) Rejection of conspecific eggs in chaffinches: the effect of age and clutch characteristics. Ethology (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Yom-Tov Y (2001) An updated list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143:133–143Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Honza
    • 1
  • Petr Procházka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bård G. Stokke
    • 3
  • Arne Moksnes
    • 3
  • Eivin Røskaft
    • 3
  • Miroslav ČapekJr
    • 1
  • Vojtěch Mrlík
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science Charles UniversityPrahaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology NTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations