Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 149, Issue 3, pp 415–421 | Cite as

Responses of Black-headed Gulls Larus ridibundus to conspecific brood parasitism

  • Radka Ležalová-PiálkováEmail author
  • Marcel Honza
Original Article

Abstract

Conspecific brood parasitism in birds occurs when a female inserts her egg into the clutch of her own species. If successful, i.e. the parasitic egg is accepted by the host, then the host female or pair rears the offspring of the parasite. In the present study, we studied natural conspecific brood parasitism in Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus), and conducted series of the experiments with mimetic (conspecific) and non-mimetic (conspecific painted light blue) eggs to explore responses of the tested pairs towards these alien eggs. The natural parasitism rate was 10% and the probability of being parasitized significantly increased with nest density. Experimentally parasitized pairs rejected both types of experimental eggs at a similar rate: 14.3 % for mimetic and 25.5% for non-mimetic within 2 days. Non-mimetic eggs were more selectively rejected than mimetic eggs. The relationships between the probability of egg rejection (dependent variable) and predictor (independent) variables were examined by fitting generalized linear models. Contrast and intraclutch variation in ground color and spotting pattern and the volume of the egg had no significant effect on rejection behavior in either non-mimetic or mimetic eggs. However, nest density significantly positively affected rejection behavior of the Black-headed Gulls in both non-mimetic and mimetic treatments.

Keywords

Black-headed Gull Egg rejection Experiment Intraspecific brood parasitism Larus ridibundus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript and H. Hashimi for improving of English. This research was funded by GAJU 51/2003/P-BF and MSM 6007665801 grants and was also supported by GAČR 206/05/H012. This study has been carried out under permission given to M. Honza and in accordance with the laws and ethical guidelines (008/98-M103) established in the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Arnold T (1987) Conspecific egg discrimination in American coots. Condor 89:675–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Braa AT, Moksnes A, Roskaft E (1992) Adaptations of bramblings and chaffinches towards parasitism by the common cuckoo. Anim Behav 43:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown CR (1984) Laying eggs in a neighbor’s nest: benefit and cost of colonial living in swallows. Science 224:518–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown CR, Brown MB (1989) Behavioural dynamics of intraspecific brood parasitism in colonial cliff swallows. Anim Behav 37:777–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cramp S (1983) The birds of the western palearctic. vol 3. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoo, cowbirds and the other cheaters. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra C, Bult A, Bijlsma S, Daan S, Meijer T, Zijlstra M (1990) Brood size manipulation in the Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)—effects on offspring and parental survival. J Anim Ecol 59:269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dugger BD, Blums P (2001) Effect of conspecific brood parasitism on host fitness for Tufted Duck and Common Pochard. Auk 118:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emlen ST, Wrege PH (1986) Forced copulation and intra-specific parasitism—two costs of social living in the white-fronted bee-eater. Ethology 71:2–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaston AJ, De Forest LN, Noble DG (1993) Egg recognition and egg stealing in murres (Uria spp.). Anim Behav 45:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Honza M, Procházka P, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Roskaft E, Čapek M, Mrlík V (2004) Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoo? J Ethol 22:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson WM (1998) Egg discrimination and egg-color variability in the northern masked weaver. The importance of conspecific versus interspecific parasitism. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 407–416Google Scholar
  14. Lahti DC, Lahti AR (2002) How precise is egg disrimination in weaverbirds? Anim Behav 63:1135–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lyon BE (1993) Tactics of parasitic american coots: host choice and the pattern of egg dispersion among host nests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyon BE, Hamilton LD, Magrath M (1992) The frequency of conspecific brood parasitism and the pattern of laying determinancy in yellow-headed blackbirds. Condor 94:590–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MathSoft (1997) S-PLUS 4 Guide to Statistics. MathSoft, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  18. McRae SB (1995) Temporal variation in responses to intraspecific brood parasitism in the Moorhen. Anim Behav 49:1073–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Møller AP (1987) Intraspecific nest parasitism in the Swallow, Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav 35:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monaghan P, Nager RG (1997) Why don’t birds lay more eggs? Trends Ecol Evol 12:270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moskat 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
  22. Nager RG, Monaghan P, Houston DC (2001) The cost of egg production: increased egg production reduces future fitness in gulls. J Avian Biol 32:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 6:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Payne RB (1977) The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peer DP, Sealy SG (2000) Conspecific brood parasitism and egg rejection in Great-tailed Grackles. J Avian Biol 31:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petrie M, Møller AP (1991) Laying eggs in others’nests: intraspecific parasitism in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 6:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Preston FW (1974) The volume of an egg. Auk 91:132–138Google Scholar
  28. Procházka P, Honza M (2003) Do Common Whitethroats (Sylvia communis) discriminate against alien eggs? J Ornithol 144:354–363Google Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL: http://www.R-project.org
  30. Reid JM, Monaghan P, Ruxton GD (2000) The consequences of clutch size for incubation conditions and hatching success in starlings. Funct Ecol 14:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rohwer FC, Freeman S (1989) The distribution of conspecific nest parasitism in birds. Can J Zool 67:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothstein SI (1974) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk 91:796–807Google Scholar
  33. Rothstein SI (1975) Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: do birds know their own eggs? Anim Behav 23:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (1998) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Saino N, Fasola M (1993) Egg and nest recognition by two tern species (Sternidae, Aves). Ethol Ecol Evol 5:467–476Google Scholar
  36. Shugart GW (1987) Individual clutch by Caspian Terns, Sterna caspia. Anim Behav 35:1563–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sorenson MD (1995) Evidence of conspecific nest parasitism and egg discrimination in the Sora. Condor 97:819–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 arundinaceus). Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell R (eds) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Heineman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Victoria JK (1972) Clutch characteristics and egg discriminative ability of the African Village Weaverbird Ploceus cucullatus. Ibis 114:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the cost of reproduction, and refinement of lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:678–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yom-Tov Y (2001) An update list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate Biology Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Faculty of Biological SciencesUniversity of South BohemiaCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations