Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Soler, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Soler, J. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 10 No. 1: 1-6
© 1999 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Do life-history variables of European cuckoo hosts explain their egg-rejection behavior?

Juan J. Soler

Departamento de Biología Animal y Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain

Address correspondence to J. J. Soler. E-mail: jsolerc{at}goliat.ugr.es

Received 26 August 1997; revised 4 January 1998; accepted 25 March 1998.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Recently, Brooker and Brooker suggested an equilibrium in the level of host defense and parasite counter-defense despite the passage of sufficient time for the evolution of host defenses through coevolution between brood parasites and their hosts. A long coevolutionary history of brood parasitism and nest predation has favored an adjustment of the host's life-history pattern to the point where total acceptance of a cuckoo egg is now an evolutionarily stable strategy. In a comparative study based on host species as independent observations, some predictions were tested for the European cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) and Horsfield's bronze cuckoo (Chrysococcyx basalis). In this article I reanalyze the predictions made by Brooker and Brooker using information on the European cuckoo and its hosts in the British Isles while controlling for common phylogenetic descent. Only 1 of the 12 predictions of Brooker and Brooker was supported using the new analyses, and none of the life-history variables was related to rejection behavior of the hosts of the European cuckoo, implying weak support for the hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that when analyzing life-history variables that have a phylogenetic component, the use of modern comparative analyses is essential.

Key words: brood parasitism, coevolution, evolutionary equilibrium.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Brood parasitism is a reproductive strategy in which the parasite lays its eggs in the nests of other species, which incubate the parasite's eggs and take care of the chicks. The high costs imposed by brood parasites on their hosts have been proposed to select for host defenses against the brood parasite (Rothstein, 1990)Go. Host-egg discrimination and rejection is one of the most important defense tactics, which simultaneously selects for parasitic counter-defenses such as egg mimicry (Davies and Brooke, 1988Go; Rothstein, 1990Go). Levels of host defense and parasite counter-defense are predicted to change in relation to the duration of sympatry (Davies and Brooke, 1989aGo; Lotem and Rothstein, 1995Go; Øien et al., 1995Go), an aspect that has received some experimental support (Briskie et al., 1992Go; Soler and Møller, 1990Go; Soler et al., 1994Go). This scenario indicates reciprocal selective influences between the parasite and its hosts (Davies and Brooke, 1989bGo; Moksnes et al., 1990Go), possibly resulting in a coevolutionary arms race (Dawkins and Krebs, 1979)Go.

Although parasites and hosts have been involved in a coevolutionary process for a long time, not all host species are rejectors, and some host species almost always accept parasitic eggs and raise parasitic chicks (Brooke and Davies, 1988Go; Brooker and Brooker, 1989Go; Mason, 1986Go; Rothstein, 1975Go; von Haartman, 1981Go). There are two general explanations for the lack of rejection behavior in hosts: (1) the "evolutionary lag" hypothesis states that rejection behavior has not had time to evolve in the host population (Davies and Brooke, 1989bGo; Dawkins and Krebs, 1979Go; Rothstein, 1990Go), whereas (2) the "evolutionary equilibrium" hypothesis states that, although there has been time for the evolution of rejection behavior in hosts, putative costs of rejection apparently outweigh the benefits, thereby preventing the evolution of rejection (Davies and Brooke, 1989aGo; Lotem et al., 1992Go, 1995Go; Marchetti, 1992Go; Rohwer and Spaw, 1988Go). Alternatively, variation in host populations, related to individual host quality, its life history, or environmental characteristics could allow an equilibrium at the level of host recognition and rejection of cuckoo eggs (Brooker and Brooker, 1996)Go.

Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go recently analyzed different host life-history and environmental variables in relation to the lack of rejection behavior in the splendid fairy-wren (Malurus splendens), a common host of Horsfield's bronze cuckoo (Chrysococcyx basalis), concluding that a long coevolutionary history of brood parasitism and nest predation has favored an adjustment of the host's life-history pattern to the point where total acceptance of the cuckoo egg is now an evolutionarily stable strategy. Moreover, a comparative study of both hosts of Horsfield's bronze cuckoo and those of the European cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) were used to analyze the relationship between rejection rate, as an index of duration of coevolution and life-history traits of suitable hosts. These researchers found that these two kind of variables were related and that consequently host rejection behavior can be explained only by life-history variables. This information was used to suggest a change in the current paradigm concerning the European cuckoo and its hosts as a classical example of an escalating coevolutionary arms race.

The comparative analysis fails in several respects: (1) the authors did not control for common phylogenetic descent and therefore treated species and different populations of the same species as statistically independent observations. This point is highly important, given that many examples in the literature demonstrate that lack of control for common phylogenetic descent leads to erroneous conclusions (see examples in Harvey and Pagel, 1991Go) or masks real relationships (Soler and Møller, 1996)Go. (2) The authors used data from different host populations (even from different continents), which may imply differences in the value of life-history traits (Martin and Clobert, 1996)Go and in the selection pressures suffered by hosts (e.g., parasitism rate; Davies and Brooke, 1989aGo; Moksnes et al., 1993Go). Moreover, (3) the authors mixed hosts of the European cuckoo and those of Horsfield's bronze cuckoo in the same analysis, but these are two species that could impose different selection pressures on their hosts. Because of this, the level of host defense against parasitism (e.g., rejection rate) could depend on the particular brood parasite species rather than the life history of the host. For example, both dependent (rejection rate) and independent variables (life-history traits, see above) may be affected by confounding factors leading to an erroneous conclusion.

In summary, variables used in the comparative analysis by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go may be influenced by (1) common phylogenetic descent of the host species, (2) the geographical area from which the data came, and (3) the brood parasite species. Therefore, further comparative analyses are needed to test the predictions by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go for the European cuckoo, while controlling for all confounding factors by using (1) life-history data of hosts from the same area, (2) hosts of only one species of brood parasite, and (3) modern comparative methodology that controls for the effects of common phylogenetic descent. In this article, I report tests of the predictions by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go for the European cuckoo and its hosts, while controlling for common phylogenetic descent, using data from hosts in Britain. The predictions based on the Brooker and Brooker's (1996)Go "evolutionary equilibrium" hypothesis are as follows:

  1. Frequency of rejection should increase as host mobility increases.
  2. Frequency of rejection should increase as the breeding season becomes shorter.
  3. The type of strategy used by hosts (acceptance, desertion, or ejection) should be correlated with the duration of the breeding season.
  4. Frequency of acceptance should increase as clutch size decreases.
  5. Species with the highest rejection rates should not be those whose eggs are mimicked by the cuckoo.
  6. Species with the lowest rejection rates should be those that are most frequently parasitized.
  7. The three categories of host strategies (acceptors, deserters, or ejectors) are distinct when plotted against ability to renest, migration status, putative costs of raising a cuckoo, and putative costs of ejection.
  8. Acceptors should be sedentary species with a high probability of renesting.
  9. Rejector species should be migratory species with low probability of renesting.
  10. Acceptor species are those for whom the putative cost of raising the cuckoo is lowest.
  11. Ejectors species are those for whom the putative cost of ejection is lowest.
  12. Deserter species have costs between acceptors and ejectors (higher putative cost of raising a cuckoo than acceptors and higher putative cost of ejection than ejectors).


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Potential host species used in the analyses
To analyze features of potential cuckoo hosts, I used all British passerine species that had been recorded with a cuckoo egg in their nests and for which information was available in the literature for all variables used in the analyses (n = 22). However, when testing differences between acceptor, ejector and deserter species, I used only species that had previously been classified in one of these groups by Moksnes et al. (1991)Go, or other host species for which their behavior had been recorded (accepting, ejecting, or deserting) by Davies and Brooke (1989a)Go.

Variables analyzed in the model
I assembled information on the following variables for each potential cuckoo host: (1) body mass: the mean value of those reported for male and female by Perrins (1987)Go. (2) Clutch size, as the mean of maximum and minimum values reported by Perrins (1987)Go. (3) Number of broods per season, from Perrins (1987)Go. (4) Rejection rate, as the mean value of those reported from various sources (Davies and Brooke 1989aGo; Moksnes et al. 1990Go), not only from studies in the British Isles, but also from other European countries. I used the mean value for the rejection rate because Soler and Møller (1996)Go demonstrated a high repeatability of estimates from different countries (repeatability = 0.73; SE = 0.13; F = 7.12; df = 13,16; p =.0002; from Soler and Møller, 1996Go). (5) Degree of mimicry of European cuckoo eggs parasitizing different host species as the percentage of cuckoo eggs found in their corresponding host species reported by Moksnes and Røskaft (1995)Go. (6) Bill length, from the values of British populations reported by Cramp and Perrins (1993-1994)Go. (7) Migratory status: as did Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go, I classified host species in seven different groups based on their winter quarters reported by Cramp and Perrins (1993-1994)Go for the British population: (i) year-round residents, (ii) primarily residents (migrate <50 km), (iii) migrate >50 km but stay in the British Isles, (iv) migrate outside the British Isles but to surrounding countries, (v) migrate to southern Europe or North Africa, (vi) migrate south of the Sahara but not farther than the equator, and (vii) migrate south of the equator. (8) Duration of the breeding season in months, as the season for the occurrence of eggs without the margins for early eggs and late broods reported in annual cycle diagrams by Cramp and Perrins (1993-1994)Go. (9) Degree of renesting, calculated following Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go, as the duration of the breeding season divided by the clutch size. (10) The putative cost of rejection, calculated following Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go, as 1/(body mass + bill length). (11) The putative cost of raising a cuckoo was defined by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go as the relative difference in size between the host and the cuckoo fledgling; therefore we used only host body mass. Finally, (12) when testing differences between acceptor, ejector, and deserter species, using data from Moksnes et al. (1991)Go and Davies and Brooke (1989a)Go, I classified species as (i) acceptors if they accepted more than 50% of experimental eggs; (ii) ejectors if they rejected more than 50% of the experimental eggs and in more than 50% of the rejector nests the experimental eggs were ejected; and (iii) deserters if they rejected more than 50% of the experimental eggs and more than 50% of the rejector nests were abandoned. See the appendix for the data set.

Statistical procedures
Because it is necessary to distinguish between the value of a trait due to common phylogenetic descent and that due to coevolutionary history of hosts and brood parasites (see Introduction), I used available comparative methods.

I have used the passerine classification given in Howard and Moore (1991)Go as a phylogeny (Figure 1). Although the use of phylogenies based on morphology (traditional cladistic classification) could involve some problems, it is preferable to use the most available complete information rather than making no analyses at all, although analyses should be revised when the phylogeny involved becomes better known (Garland et al., 1991)Go. Moreover, several recent studies have suggested that phylogenies based on molecular changes may also include inaccuracies (Harvey et al., 1992Go; Nee et al., 1993Go), and there are many examples in the literature where traditional cladistic classification has been used in comparative studies (e.g., Hartley and Davies, 1994Go; Keller and Genoud, 1997Go; Owens and Bennett, 1994Go).



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Phylogenetic tree used in the analyses. Cladistic classification from Howard and Moore (1991)Go.

 

In performing the analyses, I assumed polytomies between different species within the same genus and between different genera from the same family; i.e., I assumed that all species from the same genus (or all genera from the same family) evolved simultaneously from a common ancestor (multiway speciation events; see Purvis and Garland, 1993Go, for problems with polytomies, their implications, and possible solutions). Hence, I set branch lengths of all species to the same value (=1) (Garland et al., 1993Go; Purvis and Garland, 1993Go). I also used two methods to solve polytomies and assigned branch length, one developed by Grafen (1989)Go and another developed by Pagel and Harvey (1989)Go. These methods can be applied to imperfectly resolved phylogenies, as might be the case if a taxonomy is used instead of a phylogeny, as in this study. To control for the possible effects of common phylogenetic descent, I used Felsenstein's (1985)Go independent comparison method as implemented in a computer program developed by Garland et al. (1993)Go. This method finds a set of independent pairwise differences or contrasts, assuming that changes along the branches of the phylogeny can be modeled by a Brownian motion process (successive changes are independent of one another), and that the expected total change added together over many independent changes is zero (Harvey and Pagel, 1991)Go. Therefore, pairwise differences in the phylogenetic tree are independent of each other (Harvey and Pagel, 1991)Go. The advantage of independent-comparison approaches is that, by partitioning the variation appropriately, all contrasts can be used to assess a hypothetical comparative relationship (Harvey and Pagel, 1991)Go. Moreover, by the use of three different methods of assigning branch length, the conclusions are stronger when the results are the same, regardless of assuming polytomies or using methodologies to resolve them.

Some variables in the analyses could be interrelated, and to solve this problem, I previously carried out a principal component analysis (PCA; factor rotation: varimax normalized) using the values of contrasts of all dependent variables. However, the variables shared little variance, the eigenvalue of the second factor being less than 2 (eigenvalue factor 2 = 1.66), and the three first axes explaining only 67.5% of the variance. Therefore, for a better understanding of the results, I used the contrast value for each variable instead of the principal component coordinate for each factor.

Some variables introduced in the analyses were transformed to obtain approximately normal distributions of variables: body mass and clutch size were transformed to log (n); rejection rates and degree of mimicry were transformed to arcsin (n); the other variables already had approximately normal distributions. All variables with the calculated phylogenetic independent contrasts had approximately normal distributions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, ns). All tests were two-tailed.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
With the use of European cuckoo hosts in the British Isles and control for common phylogenetic descent, only prediction number 5 given by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go was supported (Table 1). Rejection rates were unrelated to egg mimicry. All other predictions by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go were unsupported (Table 1). Therefore, it appears that the use of host species of different brood parasites and the absence of control for common phylogenetic descent confounded the results presented by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Results of predictions by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go
 


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The association between brood parasites and their hosts has traditionally been viewed as a classical example of an escalating coevolutionary arms race (Davies and Brooke, 1989bGo; Dawkins and Krebs, 1979Go; Rothstein, 1990Go). Under the arms race hypothesis, differences between host species in rejection behavior reflect different stages of a coevolutionary race (Davies and Brooke, 1989b)Go, with acceptors at an early stage (experiencing evolutionary lag) and rejectors at a later stage. However, Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go recently reported a correlation between acceptance rates and host life-history traits and environment and a negative relationship between rejection rate and the "resultant" degree of egg mimicry.

Therefore, it seems that acceptance by cuckoo hosts cannot be due to evolutionary lag, and egg rejection behavior cannot be responsible for egg mimicry. Rather, host rejection has forced cuckoos to specialize mainly on those acceptors and partial acceptors whose life-history strategies and habitat allow them to cope with parasitism. Therefore, at least in the Cuculus clade of cuckoos, mounting evidence supports a hypothesis of evolutionary equilibrium in brood parasitism (Brooker and Brooker, 1996)Go.

In this study I reanalyzed data and predictions from Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go, while controlling for factors such as common phylogenetic descent, and using data from only one country and only one species of brood parasite, the European cuckoo. This new analysis clearly shows no relationship between any life-history trait of hosts and their level of rejection. Contrary to this prediction, Soler and Møller (1996)Go showed that the rejection rate was positively related to traits that evolved to facilitate cuckoo-egg recognition, such as a low degree of intraclutch variation and a high degree of interclutch variation, evidence that clearly supports the idea that egg pigmentation is an evolutionary response to brood parasitism and that coevolution took place (Øien et al., 1995)Go.

Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go also found that acceptors, ejectors, and deserters varied in life-history traits, although none of the predictions were supported when controlling for confounding factors. On the contrary, Davies and Brooke (1989a)Go found that species with smaller bills suffered greater rejection costs (own eggs damaged; see also Moksnes et al., 1991Go; Rohwer and Spaw, 1988Go) and that these species were more likely to reject model eggs by desertion than species with larger bills, which tended to reject by ejection. Therefore, the apparent relationship between host life-history traits and whether they are acceptors, ejectors, or deserters could be simply because this kind of behavior is related to bill length, which is a trait with a strong phylogenetic effect (closely related species have similar bill lengths and, therefore, similar costs of rejecting cuckoo eggs and life-history traits).

The only one of Brooker and Brooker's predictions supported by the new analysis is number 5: species with the highest rejection rate should not be those whose eggs are mimicked by the cuckoo. If the cuckoo egg mimicry appears as a counter-defense mechanism against the ability of hosts to reject cuckoo eggs, we should expect a positive relationship between these two variables. However, because egg coloration and patterns have a phylogenetic component (closely related species have similar kind of eggs compared with nonrelated species), it is difficult to know which host species is mainly responsible for the evolution of cuckoo egg mimicry. In this scenario, it is possible to detect cuckoo egg mimicry in a group of species not responsible for the evolution of that parasite counter-defense. Then, to test that relationship it is first necessary to detect host species potentially responsible for cuckoo egg mimicry. However, even in this case, a change in cuckoo host selection to a closely related species will make the interpretation of the results difficult because (1) although degree of mimicry will be the same, the former host may gradually lose its capability of such rejection behavior (see Cruz and Willey, 1989Go), and (2) the new host, not responsible for the cuckoo egg mimicry, will have a low rejection rate. Moreover, if cuckoos select similar nesting sites (Moksnes and Røskaft, 1987Go, 1995Go; Wyllie, 1981Go), or seek nests completely at random in the habitat where they were born and reared (Brooke and Davies, 1991Go; Moksnes and Røskaft, 1995Go), it will be difficult to interpret the results. Therefore, to make clear predictions of cuckoo-host coevolution, it is first necessary to clarify the mechanisms governing cuckoo host selection and subsequently make predictions.

In conclusion, in a new analysis of the predictions by Brooker and Brooker (1996)Go, I found weak support for the evolutionary equilibrium hypothesis described by the authors between the European cuckoo and its hosts. However, Brooker and Brooker's hypothesis might still be correct, but they were not allowed to argue this based on current data. Moreover, it is clear that when analyzing life-history variables, which have a phylogenetic component, the use of modern comparative analyses is essential.


    APPENDIX
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Information on body mass (g), clutch size, rejection rate (%), classification of host species, degree of mimicry (from Moksnes and Roskaft, 1995)Go, bill length (mm), winter quarters (from Cramp and Perrins 1993-1994Go), migratory status, duration of the breeding season (months), renesting ability (duration of breeding season divided by clutch size), and cost of rejection (inverse of body mass multiplied by bill length)Go


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
 


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
I am most grateful to Juan Gabriel Martínez, Anders Pape Møller, Jose Javier Palomino, Manuel Soler, and Carmen Zamora for valuable comments on the manuscript. Funds were provided by a postdoctoral grant from the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia included in the project (DGCYT PB94-0785).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Briskie JV, Sealy SG, Hobson KA, 1992. Behavioural defenses against avian brood parasitism in sympatric and allopatric host populations. Evolution 46:334-340.

Brooke M de L, Davies NB, 1988. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts.Nature 335:630-632.

Brooke M de L, Davies NB, 1991. A failure to demonstrate host imprinting in the cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) and alternative hypothesis for the maintenance of egg mimicry.Ethology 89:154-166.

Brooker MG, Brooker LC, 1989. The comparative breeding behaviour of two sympatric cuckoos, Chrysococcyx basalis and C. lucidus, in Western Australia: a new model for the evolution of egg morphology and host specificity in avian brood parasites. Ibis 131:528-547.

Brooker MG, Brooker LC, 1996. Acceptance by the splendid fairywren of parasitism by Horsfield's bronze cuckoo: further evidence for evolutionary equilibrium in brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 7:395-407.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Cramp S, 1985. The birds of the Western Palaearctic, vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cramp S, Perrins CM, 1993-1994. The birds of the Western Palaearctic, vols. 8-9. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cruz A, Willey JW, 1989. The decline of an adaptation in the absence of a presumed selection pressure. Evolution 43:55-62.

Davies NB, Brooke M de L, 1988. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav 36:262-284.

Davies NB, Brooke M de L, 1989a. An experimental study of coevolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol 58:207-224.

Davies NB, Brooke M de L, 1989b. An experimental study of coevolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus and its hosts. II. Host egg marking, chicks discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol 58:225-236.

Dawkins R, Krebs JR, 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:489-511.[Medline]

Felsenstein J, 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1-15.

Garland T Jr, Dickerman AW, Janis CM, Jones JA, 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst Biol 42:265-292.

Garland T Jr, Huey RB, Bennett AF, 1991. Phylogeny and coadaptation of thermal physiology in lizards: a reanalysis.Evolution 45:1969-1975.

Grafen A, 1989. The phylogenetic regression.Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 205:581-598.

Hartley IR, Davies NB, 1994. Limits to cooperative polyandry in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:67-73.

Harvey PH, Pagel M, 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harvey PH, Nee S, Mooers AØ, Partridge L, 1992. These hierarchical views of life: phylogenies and metapopulations. In: Genes in ecology (Berry RJ, Crawford TJ, Hewitt GM, eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications;123 -137.

Howard R, Moore A, 1991. A complete checklist of the birds of the world. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Keller L, Genoud M, 1997. Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of ageing.Nature: 389:958-960.

Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A, 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim Behav 49:1185-1209.

Lotem A, Rothstein SI, 1995. Cuckoo-host coevolution: from snapshots of an arms race to the documentation of microevolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:436-437

Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A, 1992. Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol 3:126-132.

Marchetti K, 1992. Costs to host defense and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. Proc R Soc Lond B 248:41-45.[Medline]

Martin TE, Clobert J, 1996. Nest predation and avian life-history evolution in Europe versus North America: a possible role of humans? Am Nat 147:1028-1046.

Mason P, 1986. Brood parasitism in a host generalist, the shiny cowbird. I. The quality of different species as hosts.Auk 103:52-60.

Moksnes A, Røskaft E, 1987. Cuckoo host interactions in Norwegian mountain areas. Ornis Scand 18:168-172.

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 236:625-648.

Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Bicik V, Honza M, Øien IJ,1993 . Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism on Acrocephalus warblers in southern Moravia in the Czech Republic.J Ornithol 134:425-434.

Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, 1991. Rejection behavior by common cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs.Auk 108:348-354.

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 116:64-89.

Nee S, Mooers AØ, Harvey PH, 1993. The tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:8322-8326.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, 1995. Evolution of variation in egg color and pattern in European passerines: adaptations in a coevolutionary arms race with the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol 6:166-174.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Owens IPF, Bennet PM, 1994. Mortality costs of parental care and sexual dimorphism in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:1-8.

Pagel MD, Harvey PH, 1989. Comparative methods for examining adaptation depend on evolutionary models. Folia Primatol 53:203-220.

Perrins C, 1987. Nueva generación de guías. Aves de España y de Europa. Barcelona: Omega.

Purvis A, Garland T Jr, 1993. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst Biol 42:569-575.

Rohwer S, Spaw CD, 1988. Evolutionary lag versus bill size constraints: a comparative study of the acceptance of cowbird eggs by old hosts. Evol Ecol 2:27-36.

Rothstein SI, 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77:250-271.

Rothstein SI, 1990. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481-508.[ISI]

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 7:89-94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Soler M, Møller AP, 1990. Duration of sympatry and coevolution between great spotted cuckoo and its magpie host.Nature 343:748-750.

Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Møller AP, 1994. Micro-evolutionary change in host response to a brood parasite. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:295-301.

von Haartman L, 1981. Coevolution of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus and a regular cuckoo host. Ornis Fenn 58:1-10.

Wyllie I, 1981. The cuckoo. London: Batsford.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
N.E. Langmore, R.M. Kilner, S.H.M. Butchart, G. Maurer, N.B. Davies, A. Cockburn, N.A. Macgregor, A. Peters, M.J.L. Magrath, and D.K. Dowling
The evolution of egg rejection by cuckoo hosts in Australia and Europe
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2005; 16(4): 686 - 692.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Soler, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Soler, J. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?