Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 879–891 | Cite as

Choosing suitable hosts: common cuckoos Cuculus canorus parasitize great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus of high quality

  • Lenka PolačikováEmail author
  • Petr Procházka
  • Michael I. Cherry
  • Marcel Honza
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated the hypothesis that the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus selects host pairs of good phenotypic quality. As there is some evidence that cuckoos may select hosts within a population non-randomly based on external cues reflecting their foster abilities, we predicted that great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus pairs parasitized by the cuckoo would exhibit higher quality than unparasitized ones. To test this assumption, we evaluated two different parameters indicating host quality: body condition and characteristics of host eggs. We found that parasitized females showed significantly better body condition than unparasitized ones, and the model showed that the probability of being parasitized by the cuckoos increased with increasing body condition. Moreover, the likelihood of being parasitized by a cuckoo within the great reed warbler population increased with decreasing colour variability within clutches: parasitized females allocated costly blue pigments to eggshells more equally compared with unparasitized ones. Our study revealed that cuckoos parasitize great reed warbler females of higher quality, as reflected in host body condition and egg colour characteristics. In highly mimetic systems, cuckoos may choose to parasitize hosts with eggs displaying low intraclutch variation, both because this leads to reduced rejection and because these hosts are of high quality.

Keywords

Brood parasitism Cuckoo Host quality Host selection Spectrophotometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Experiments were conducted in accordance with current laws of the Czech Republic and the Academy of Sciences Animal Care Protocol. Thanks are due to M. Požgayová and D. Fainová for various contributions to this work, and to T. Grim and the anonymous referees for their constructive comments. LP suggested the work, run the experiments, processed data and wrote the manuscript. LP’s fieldwork was covered by the project no. 524/05/H536 and by the Masaryk University rector’s programme for students’ creative activity. LP and PP analyzed data. PP ran the experiments, discussed the data processing and writing the manuscript. MIC assisted with interpretation of results and in writing the manuscript. MH ran the experiments and financed the study (grant nos. IAA600930605, LC06073).

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Gustafsson L, Lundberg A (1990) Phenotypic selection on heritable size traits: environmental variance and genetic response. Am Nat 135:464–471. doi: 10.1086/285056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez F (2000) Clutches of rufous bush chats Cercotrichas galactotes parasitized by cuckoo Cuculus canorus contain larger eggs. Ardea 88:109–111Google Scholar
  3. Avilés JM, Møller AP (2003) Meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis) egg appearance in cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) sympatric and allopatric populations. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 79:543–549. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00208.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avilés JM, Soler JJ, Soler M, Møller AP (2004) Rejection of parasitic eggs in relation to egg appearance in magpies. Anim Behav 67:951–958. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balsby TJS (2000) Song activity and variability in relation to male quality and female choice in whitethroats Sylvia communis. J Avian Biol 31:56–62. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-048X.2000.310108.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks AJ, Martin TE (2001) Host activity and the risk of nest parasitism by brown headed cowbird. Behav Ecol 12:31–40Google Scholar
  7. Bensch S, Hasselquist D (1992) Evidence for active female choice in a polygynous warbler. Anim Behav 44:301–311. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(92)90036-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham PB, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference—A practical information−theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD (2001) Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:565–571. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007a) Do cuckoos choose nests of great reed warblers on the basis of host egg appearance? J Evol Biol 20:1218–1220. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01308.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007b) Host intra-clutch variation, cuckoo egg matching and egg rejection by great reed warblers. Naturwissenschaften 94:441–447. doi: 10.1007/s00114-007-0216-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clotfelter ED (1998) What cues do brown-headed cowbirds use to locate red-winged blackbird host nests? Anim Behav 55:1181–1189. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0638 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. T and A D Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies NB, Brooke MDL (1988) Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav 36:262–284. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80269-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Brooke MDL (1991) Co-evolution of the cuckoo and its hosts. Sci Am 264:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyrcz A (1986) Factors affecting facultative polygyny and breeding results in the great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus). J Ornithol 127:447–461. doi: 10.1007/BF01640260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edvardsen E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Øien IJ, Honza M (2001) Egg mimicry in cuckoos parasitizing four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. Condor 103:829–837. doi: 10.1650/0010-5422(2001)103[0829:EMICPF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Endler JA (1990) On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 41:315–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1990.tb00839.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garamszegi LZ, Avilés JM (2005) Brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds and the expression of sexual characters in theirs hosts. Oecologia 143:167–177. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1784-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant ND, Sealy SG (2002) Selection of red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) hosts by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Bird Behav 15:21–30Google Scholar
  21. Grim T (2002) Why is mimicry in cuckoo eggs sometimes so poor? J Avian Biol 33:302–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafsson L, Sutherland WJ (1988) The costs of reproduction in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Nature 335:813–817. doi: 10.1038/335813a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison C, Castell P (2004) Bird nests, eggs and nestlings of Britain and Europe with North Africa and the Middle East. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasselquist D (1998) Polygyny in great reed warblers: a long-term study of factors contributing to male fitness. Ecology 79:2376–2390Google Scholar
  25. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, von Schantz T (1996) Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381:229–232. doi: 10.1038/381229a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BGS (2001) How are different common cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg morphs maintained? An evaluation of different hypotheses. Ardea 89:341–352Google Scholar
  27. Honza M, Procházka P, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Čapek M Jr et al (2004) Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoo? J Ethol 22:175–180. doi: 10.1007/s10164-004-0119-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoyt DF (1979) Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96:73–77Google Scholar
  29. Järvinen A, Väisänen RA (1983) Egg size and related reproductive traits in a southern passerine Ficedula hypoleuca breeding in an extreme northern environment. Ornis Scand 14:253–262. doi: 10.2307/3676313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karcza Z, Moskát C, Cherry MI, Kisbenedek T (2003) Experimental manipulation of intraclutch variation in the great reed warbler shows no effect on rejection of parasitic eggs. Ethology 109:15–22. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00839.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilner RM (2006) The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:383–406. doi: 10.1017/S1464793106007044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleven O, Moksnes M, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Stokke BG, Honza M (2004) Breeding success of common cuckoos Cuculus canorus parasitising four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol 35:394–398. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03359.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krist M, Grim T (2007) Are blue eggs a sexually selected signal of female collared flycatchers? A cross-fostering experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:863–876. doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0315-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Leisler B, Beier J, Heine G, Siebenrock KH (1995) Age and other factors influencing mating status in German great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus). Jpn J Ornithol 44:169–180. doi: 10.3838/jjo.44.169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindén M, Gustafsson L, Pärt T (1992) Selection on fledging mass in the collared flycatcher and the great tit. Ecology 73:336–343. doi: 10.2307/1938745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1995) Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo–host co-evolution. Anim Behav 49:1185–1209. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1995.0152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lovászi P, Moskát C (2004) Break-down of arms race between the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) and the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Behaviour 141:245–262. doi: 10.1163/156853904322890843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merilä J, Svensson E (1997) Are fat reserves in migratory birds affected by condition in early life? J Avian Biol 28:279–286. doi: 10.2307/3676940 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1987) Cuckoo host interactions in Norwegian mountain areas. Ornis Scand 18:168–172. doi: 10.2307/3676762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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) 236:625–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreno J, Osorno JL (2003) Avian egg colour and sexual selection: does eggshell pigmentation reflect female condition and genetic quality? Ecol Lett 6:803–806. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00505.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moreno J, Osorno JL, Morales J, Merino S, Tomás G (2004) Egg colouration and male parental effort in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. J Avian Biol 35:300–304. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03407.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moreno J, Morales J, Lobato E, Merino S, Tomás G, Martínez-de la Puente J (2005) Evidence for the signalling function of egg colour in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:931–937. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ari072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moskát C, Honza M (2000) Effect of nest and nest site characteristics on the risk of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Ecography 23:335–341. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.d01-1642.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 144:614–622. doi: 10.1046/j.1474-919X.2002.00085.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parejo D, Avilés JM (2007) Do avian brood parasites eavesdrop on heterospecific sexual signals revealing host quality? A review of the evidence. Anim Cogn 10:81–88. doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0055-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Polačiková L, Honza M, Procházka P, Topercer J, Stokke BGS (2007) Colour characteristics of the blunt part of blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) eggs: possible cues for egg recognition. Anim Behav 74:419–427. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Procházka P, Honza M (2003) Do common whitethroats (Sylvia communis) discriminate against alien eggs? J Ornithol 144:354–363Google Scholar
  50. Procházka P, Honza M (2004) Egg discrimination in the yellowhammer. Condor 106:405–410. doi: 10.1650/7365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothstein SI (1990) A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481–501. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.002405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (1998) The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasites. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–56Google Scholar
  53. Siefferman L, Navara KJ, Hill GE (2006) Egg coloration is correlated with female condition in eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:651–656. doi: 10.1007/s00265-005-0092-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siitari H, Huhta E (2002) Individual color variation and male quality in pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca): a role of ultraviolet reflectance. Behav Ecol 13:737–741. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.6.737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith JNM (1981) Cowbird parasitism, host fitness, and age of the host female in an island song sparrow population. Condor 83:152–161. doi: 10.2307/1367420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith JNM, Arcese P (1984) Brown-headed cowbirds and an island population of song sparrows: a 16-year study. Condor 96:916–934. doi: 10.2307/1369102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith JNM, Arcese P, McLean IG (1984) Age, experience, and enemy recognition by wild song sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:101–106. doi: 10.1007/BF00291901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1997) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W H Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Soler JJ, Soler M, Møller AP, Martínez JG (1995) Does the great spotted cuckoo choose magpie hosts according to their parenting ability? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:201–206. doi: 10.1007/BF00177797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soler JJ, Møller AP, Soler M (1998) Nest building, sexual selection and parental investment. Evol Ecol 12:427–441. doi: 10.1023/A:1006520821219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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. Etologia 8:9–16Google Scholar
  62. Soler JJ, Moreno J, Avilés JM, Møller AP (2005) Blue and green egg-colour intensity is associated with parental effort and mating system in passerines: support for the sexual selection hypothesis. Evol Int J Org Evol 59:636–644Google Scholar
  63. 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 Biol Sci 266:1483–1488. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stokke BG, Rudolfsen G, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2004) Rejection of conspecific eggs in chaffinches: the effect of age and clutch characteristics. Ethology 110:459–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.00978.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Teuschl Y, Taborsky B, Taborsky M (1998) How do cuckoos find their hosts? The role of habitat imprinting. Anim Behav 56:1425–1433. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0931 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Underwood TJ, Sealy SG (2002) Adaptive significance of egg coloration. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian incubation, behaviour, environment and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–298Google Scholar
  67. Wiebe KL, Bortolotti GR (1995) Egg size and clutch size in the reproductive investments of American kestrels. J Zool (Lond) 237:285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams TD (1994) Intraspecific variation in egg size and egg composition in birds: effect on offspring fitness. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 68:35–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01485.x Google Scholar
  69. Wyllie I (1981) The cuckoo. Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenka Polačiková
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Petr Procházka
    • 1
  • Michael I. Cherry
    • 3
  • Marcel Honza
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate Biology, v. v. i.Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Botany and ZoologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations