Advertisement

Predation risk affects egg-ejection but not recognition in blackbirds

  • Gianluca RoncalliEmail author
  • Manuel Soler
  • Francisco Ruiz-Raya
  • Antonio Jesús Serrano-Martín
  • Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo
Original Article

Abstract

Predation and brood parasitism have critical effects on the fitness of animals, but few studies have focused on the potential interactions between these two important selective forces. For instance, the egg-rejection process, one of the most important defensive responses of hosts against brood parasites, may be affected by variation in predation risk, which might divert their focus from the nest (present reproduction) to self-maintenance (future reproduction). In this study we explore the effect of predation risk on the first two stages of the egg-rejection process (judgment and decision) and if this potential effect changes according to the target of predation (adults vs offspring). To do so, we experimentally parasitized nests of common blackbirds (Turdus merula) with mimetic model eggs simultaneously exposing them to different predation-risk situations: adult predator, egg predator, and control. We found that predation risk did not affect egg recognition. Nevertheless, blackbirds exposed to the adult predation risk showed a significant reduction in the ejection rate, particularly at the end of the breeding season. We discuss our results in relation to the egg-rejection process and life-history theory. Our findings suggest that a predation risk directed to adults of parasitized nests, but not to their offspring, can play an important role in the blackbirds’ decision-making influencing the ejection of parasitic eggs, consequently affecting the outcome of the evolutionary relationship between brood parasites and their hosts.

Significance statement

Brood parasitism and predation are two important selective forces in nature, which play a crucial role in the evolutionary process in birds. Despite this, few studies have explored the possible relationships between these two selective pressures. In particular, the possibility that predation risk affects host defenses against brood parasites has usually been neglected. Predation risk could influence the egg-rejection process, which is the main defensive measure adopted by hosts once they have been parasitized. In this study we showed that predation risk seems to modulate host defenses against brood parasites in common blackbirds, but depending on the threat posed by predators. In particular, adult predation risk affects the second stage of the egg-rejection process reducing the ejection rate of parasitic eggs. Our results open a new line of research in brood parasitism studies, demonstrating that external stimuli to brood parasite-host systems can influence egg-rejection decisions.

Keywords

Adult predation Brood parasitism Egg ejection Life-history Nest predation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank John C. O’Connor for improving the English and two anonymous reviewers and the associated editor for their constructive comments that helped to improve the previous draft.

Funding

Financial support has been provided by the Junta de Andalucía (research project CVI-6653 to MS).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

We conducted the study following all relevant Spanish national (Decreto 105/2011, 19 de Abril) and regional guidelines. Ethical approval for this study was not required.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2668_MOESM1_ESM.ts (44.1 mb)
Video S1 Female touching the eggs. (TS 45129 kb) (TS 45129 kb)
265_2019_2668_MOESM2_ESM.ts (33.3 mb)
Video S2 Female observing and inspecting the nest. (TS 34059 kb) (TS 34059 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman JT, Eadie JM, Yarris GS, Loughman DL, McLandress MR (2003) Cues for investment: nest desertion in response to partial clutch depredation in dabbling ducks. Anim Behav 66:871–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2008) Getting rid of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg: why do hosts delay rejection? Behav Ecol 19:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2009) Evidence for egg discrimination preceding failed rejection attempts in a small cuckoo host. Biol Lett 5:169–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Aparicio RJ (2008) Turdus Merula. In: Carrascal LM, Salvador A (eds) Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid http://www.vertebradosibericos.org/ Google Scholar
  5. Basso A, Richner H (2015) Predator-specific effects on incubation behaviour and offspring growth in Great Tits. PLoS One 10:e0121088CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bortolotti GR, Dawson RD, Murza GL (2002) Stress during feather development predicts fitness potential. J Anim Ecol 71:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campobello D, Sealy SG (2018) Evolutionary significance of antiparasite, antipredator and learning phenotypes of avian nest defence. Sci Rep 8:10569CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Canestrari D, Bolopo D, Turlings TCJ, Röder G, Marcos JM, Baglion V (2014) From parasitism to mutualism: unexpected interactions between a cuckoo and its host. Science 343:1350–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C (2007) Host intra-clutch variation, cuckoo egg matching and egg rejection by great reed warblers. Naturwissenschaften 94:441–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Collar NJ (2005) Common blackbird. In: Handbook of the birds of the world. Lynx Edictions Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, pp 645–646Google Scholar
  12. Conway CJ, Martin TE (2000) Evolution of passerine incubation behavior: influence of food, temperature, and nest predation. Evolution 54:670–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox RM, Parker EU, Cheney DM, Liebl AL, Martin LB, Calsbeek R (2010) Experimental evidence for physiological costs underlying the trade-off between reproduction and survival. Funct Ecol 24:1262–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies NB (2010) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Brooke ML (1988) Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav 36:262–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies NB, Brooke ML (1989) An experimental study of co-evolution between the cockoo, Cuculus canorus, and its host. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol 58:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies NB, Brooke ML, Kacelnik A (1996) Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or eject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Rosario-Martinez H, Fox J, R core Team (2015) Post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.2–1. https://github.com/heliosdrm/phia
  19. Dubiec A, Cichon M (2005) Seasonal decline in nestling cellular immunocompetence results from environmental factors-an experimental study. Can J Zool 83:920–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eggers S, Griesser M, Ekman J (2008) Predator-induced reductions in nest visitation rates are modified by forest cover and food availability. Behav Ecol 19:1056–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ercit K, Martinez-Novoa A, Gwynne DT (2014) Egg load decreases mobility and increases predation risk in female Black-Horned Tree Crickets (Oecanthus nigricornis). PLoS One 9:e110298CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Feeney WE, Welbergen JA, Langmore NE (2012) The frontline of avian brood parasite–host coevolution. Anim Behav 84:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fontaine JJ, Martin TE (2006) Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecol Lett 9:428–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Forsman JT, Martin TE (2009) Habitat selection for parasite-free space by hosts of parasitic cowbirds. Oikos 118:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2001) Fecundity-survival trade-offs and parental risk-taking in birds. Science 292:494–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2002) Comparative manipulation of predation risk in incubating birds reveals variability in the plasticity of responses. Behav Ecol 13:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grim T, Honza M (2001) Differences in behaviour of closely related thrushes (Turdus philomelos and T. merula) to experimental parasitism by the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Biologia 56:549–556Google Scholar
  28. 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 80:508–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannon SJ, Wilson S, Mc Callum CA (2009) Does cowbird parasitism increase predation risk to American redstart nests. Oikos 118:1035–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harshman LG, Zera AJ (2007) The cost of reproduction: the devil in the details. Trends Ecol Evol 22:80–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hauber ME, Moskát C, Bán M (2006) Experimental shift in hosts’ acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs. Biol Lett 2:177–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoover JP, Reetz MJ (2006) Brood parasitism increases provisioning rate, and reduces offspring recruitment and adult return rates, in a cowbird host. Oecologia 149:165–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M (2010) Does urbanization affect selective pressures and life-history strategies in the common blackbird (Turdus merula L.)? Biol J Linn Soc 101:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M (2012) Predator-induced female behavior in the absence of male incubation feeding: an experimental study. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1067–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Arco L, Soler M (2012) Experimental evidence for a predation cost of begging using active nests and real chicks. J Ornithol 153:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Magrath RD, Oteyza JC, Chalfoun AD, Haff TM, Schmidt KA, Thomson RL, Martin TE (2015) Nest predation research: recent findings and future perspectives. J Ornithol 156:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Juan D. Ibáñez-Álamo, M. Soler, (2017) Male and female Blackbirds (Turdus merula) respond similarly to the risk of nest predation. Journal of Ornithology 158 (2):533-539Google Scholar
  38. Kilner RM, Langmore NE (2011) Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations, counter-adaptations and outcomes. Biol Rev 86:836–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kleindorfer S (2007) The ecology of clutch size variation in Darwin’s Small Ground Finch Geospiza fuliginosa: comparison between lowland and highland habitats. Ibis 149:730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindholm AK, Thomas RJ (2000) Differences between populations of reed warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour 137:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magrath RD, Pitcher BJ, Dalziell AH (2007) How to be fed but not eaten: nestling responses to parental food calls and the sound of a predator’s footsteps. Anim Behav 74:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Magrath RD, Pitcher BJ, Gardner JL (2009) Recognition of other species’ alarm calls: speaking the same language or learning another? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:769–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin TE, Briskie JV (2009) Predation on dependent offspring: a review of the consequences for mean expression and phenotypic plasticity in avian life history traits. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:201–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Massaro M, Starling-Windhof A, Briskie JV, Martin TE (2008) Introduced mammalian predators induce behavioural changes in parental care in an endemic New Zealand bird. PLoS One 3:e2331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT (1991) Rejection behavior by common cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk 108:348–354Google Scholar
  48. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Korsnes L (1993) Rejection of cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). Behav Ecol 4:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Molina-Morales M, Martínez JG, Martín-Gálvez D, Dawson DA, Rodríguez-Ruiz J, Burke T, Avilés JM (2012) Evidence of long-term structured cuckoo parasitism on individual magpie hosts. J Anim Ecol 82:389–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Møller AP, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2012) Escape behaviour of birds provides evidence of predation being involved in urbanization. Anim Behav 84:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Møller AP, Erritzøe J, Nielsen J (2009) Frequency of fault bars in feathers of birds and susceptibility to predation. Biol J Linn Soc 97:334–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morosinotto C, Thomson RL, Korpimäki E (2013) Plasticity in incubation behaviour under experimentally prolonged vulnerability to nest predation. Behaviour 150:1767–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moskát C, Hauber ME (2007) Conflict between egg recognition and egg rejection decisions in common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) hosts. Anim Cogn 10:377–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Newton I (1976) Breeding of sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) in different environments. J Anim Ecol 45:831–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newton I (1986) The sparrowhawk. T. & A.D. Poyser, CaltonGoogle Scholar
  56. Polačiková L, Grim T (2010) Blunt egg pole holds cues for alien egg discrimination: experimental evidence. J Avian Biol 41:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  58. Roff DA (2002) Life history evolution. Sinauer Associates Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothstein SI (1990) A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M (2017) Phenotypic plasticity in egg rejection: evidence and evolutionary consequences. In: Soler M (ed) Avian brood parasitism—behaviour, ecology, evolution and coevolution. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 449–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M (2018) Rejection of parasitic eggs: an updated terminology for a complex process. J Avian Biol 49:e01484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Sanchez-Pérez L, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2015) Could a factor that does not affect egg recognition influence the decision of rejection? PLoS One 10:e0135624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Roncalli G, Abaurrea T, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2016) Egg rejection in blackbirds Turdus merula: a by-product of conspecific parasitism or successful resistance against interspecific brood parasites? Front Zool 13:16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Roncalli G, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2019) Egg-recognition abilities in non-incubating males: implications for the evolution of anti-parasitic host defenses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sæther B-E, Andersen R, Pedersen H (1993) Regulation of parental effort in a long-lived seabird an experimental manipulation of the cost of reproduction in the Antarctic petrel, Thalassoica antarctica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Soler M (2014) Long-term coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Biol Rev 89:688–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Soler M (ed) (2017) Avian brood parasitism—behaviour, ecology, evolution and coevolution. Springer International Publishing, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 36:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Soler JJ, Soler M, Pérez-Contreras T, Aragón S, Møller AP (1999) Antagonistic antiparasite defenses: nest defense and egg rejection in the magpie host of the great spotted cuckoo. Behav Ecol 10:707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soler M, Martin-Vivaldi M, Perez-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
  72. Soler M, Fernández-Morante J, Espinosa F, Martín-Vivaldi M (2012) Pecking but accepting the parasitic eggs may not reflect ejection failure: the role of motivation. Ethology 118:662–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Soler M, Ruiz-Raya F, Roncalli G, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2015) Nest desertion cannot be considered an egg-rejection mechanism in a medium-sized host: an experimental study with the common blackbird Turdus merula. J Avian Biol 46:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soler M, Ruiz-Raya F, Roncalli G, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2017a) Relationships between egg-recognition and egg-ejection in a grasp-ejector species. PLoS One 12:e0166283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Soler M, de Neve L, Roldán M, Pérez-Contreras T, Soler JJ (2017b) Great spotted cuckoo nestlings have no antipredatory effect on magpie or carrion crow host nests in southern Spain. PLoS One 12:e0173080CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokke BG, Hafstad I, Rudolfsen G, Moksnes A, Møller AP, Røskaft E, Soler M (2008) Predictors of resistance to brood parasitism within and among reed warbler populations. Behav Ecol 19:612–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Underwood TJ, Sealy SG (2006) Grasp-ejection in two small ejecters of cowbird eggs: a test of bill-size constraints and the evolutionary equilibrium hypothesis. Anim Behav 71:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wasser DE, Sherman PW (2010) Avian longevities and their interpretation under evolutionary theories of senescence. J Zool 280:103–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Welbergen JA, Davies NB (2011) A parasite in wolf’s clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts. Behav Ecol 22:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. York JE, Davies NB (2017) Female cuckoo calls misdirect host defences towards the wrong enemy. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1520–1525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M (2011) Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. Science 334:1398–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Zeileis A, Kleiber C, Jackman S (2008) Regression models for count data in R. J Stat Softw 27:1–25Google Scholar
  84. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Zero-truncated and zero-inflated models for count data. Springer, New York, pp 261–293Google Scholar
  85. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Zoología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Behavioural and Physiological Ecology group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary StudiesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations