Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism

  • Article
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

Birds parasitized by interspecific brood parasites often adopt defences based on egg recognition but such behaviours are puzzlingly rare in species parasitized by members of the same species. Here I show that conspecific egg recognition is frequent, accurate and used in three defences that reduce the high costs of conspecific brood parasitism in American coots. Hosts recognized and rejected many parasitic eggs, reducing the fitness costs of parasitism by half. Recognition without rejection also occurred and some hosts banished parasitic eggs to inferior outer incubation positions. Clutch size comparisons revealed that females combine egg recognition and counting to make clutch size decisions—by counting their own eggs, while ignoring distinctive parasitic eggs, females avoid a maladaptive clutch size reduction. This is clear evidence that female birds use visual rather than tactile cues to regulate their clutch sizes, and provides a rare example of the ecological and evolutionary context of counting in animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1: Egg rejection on the basis of colour.
Figure 2: Difference in the length of the incubation period for paired parasitic and host eggs laid in the same nest on the same day.
Figure 3: Host clutch-size response to early-laid parasitic eggs.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shettleworth, S. J. Cognition, Evolution and Behavior (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rothstein, S. I. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21, 481–508 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherman, P. W., Reeve, H. K. & Pfennig, D. W. in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (eds Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.) 69–98 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rothstein, S. I. Successes and failures in avian egg and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimality reasoning. Am. Zool. 22, 547–560 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davies, N. B., Brooke, M. de L. & Kacelnik, A. Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 925–931 (1996)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooke, M. de L. & Davies, N. B. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature 335, 630–632 (1988)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davies, N. B. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats (Poyser, London, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rohwer, F. C. & Freeman, S. The distribution of conspecific nest parasitism in birds. Can. J. Zool. 67, 239–253 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eadie, J. M., Sherman, P. & Semel, B. in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation Biology (ed. Caro, T) 306–340 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Andersson, M. in Producers and Scroungers (ed. Barnard, C. J.) 195–228 (Croom Helm, London, 1984)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Lyon, B. E. . The Ecology and Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism in American Coots (Fulica americana) Thesis, Princeton Univ. (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lyon, B. E. Brood parasitism as a flexible female reproductive tactic in American coots. Anim. Behav. 46, 911–928 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lyon, B. E. Tactics of parasitic American coots: host choice and the pattern of egg dispersion among host nests. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33, 87–100 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyon, B. E., Hochachka, W. M & Eadie, J. M. Paternity-parasitism trade-offs: a model and test of host-parasite cooperation in an avian conspecific brood parasite. Evolution 56, 1253–1266 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kemel, R. E. & Rothstein, S. I. Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: adaptive responses to eggs with broken shells. Anim. Behav. 36, 175–183 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jamieson, I. G., McRae, S. B., Simmons, R. E. & Trewby, M. High rates of conspecific brood parasitism and egg rejection in coots and moorhens in ephemeral wetlands in Namibia. Auk 117, 250–255 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Arnold, T. W. Conspecific egg discrimination in American coots. Condor 89, 675–676 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson, W. M. in Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts (eds Rothstein, S. I. & Robinson, S. K.) 406–416 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bertram, B. C. R. The Ostrich Communal Nesting System 109–120 (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Davies, N. B. & Brooke, M. de L. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. II host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J. Anim. Ecol. 58, 225–236 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haywood, S. Sensory and hormonal control of clutch size in birds. Q. Rev. Biol. 68, 33–60 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andersson, M. & Eriksson, M. Nest parasitism in goldeneyes Bucephala clangula: some evolutionary aspects. Am. Nat. 120, 1–16 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lyon, B. E. Optimal clutch size and conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 392, 380–383 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallistel, C. R. Counting versus subitzing versus the sense of number. Behav. Brain Sci. 11, 585–586 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hauser, M. D. What do animals think about numbers. Am. Sci. 88, 144–151 (2000)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Seibt, U. Are animals naturally attuned to number? Behav. Brain Sci. 11, 597–598 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

M. Andersson, J. Briskie, J. Eadie, R. Gallistel, G. Pogson, U. Seibt, S. Shettleworth, and in particular K. Wasson and A. Chaine provided comments on the manuscript. J. Estes, E. Geffen and C. Simms provided statistical advice. B. Bair, L. Cargill, S. Everding, L. Hamilton, D. Hansen, M. Magrath, and C. Morrill assisted in the field. P. Grant, R. Rubenstein and H. Horn provided advice during the study. The National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the Chapman Fund and the Sigma Xi Society provided funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, 95064, USA

    Bruce E. Lyon

Authors
  1. Bruce E. Lyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce E. Lyon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lyon, B. Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422, 495–499 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01505

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01505

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation