© 1992 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
research-article |
Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Shinshu University Nishinagano, Nagano 380, Japan Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
ABSTRACT
Because hosts that accept a parasitic egg laid by the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, are unlikely to fledge their own offspring, rejection should be an adaptive response. Evidence that cuckoo host species attain only intermediate rates of rejection are commonly interpreted as resulting from an evolutionary lag. Yet, we found that the acceptance of cuckoo eggs by female great reed warblers, Acrocephalus arundinaceus, occurs mainly among the younger breeders in the host population. We suggest that some level of acceptance can arise in the host population as a result of the need of naive breeders to learn to reliably recognize their own eggs rather than representing evolutionary lag.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. G. Stokke, I. Hafstad, G. Rudolfsen, A. Moksnes, A. P. Moller, E. Roskaft, and M. Soler Predictors of resistance to brood parasitism within and among reed warbler populations Behav. Ecol., February 24, 2008; (2008) arn007v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Antonov, B. G. Stokke, A. Moksnes, and E. Roskaft Getting rid of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg: why do hosts delay rejection? Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 100 - 107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P. Hoover and S. K. Robinson Retaliatory mafia behavior by a parasitic cowbird favors host acceptance of parasitic eggs PNAS, March 13, 2007; 104(11): 4479 - 4483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Kosciuch, T. Parker, and B. Sandercock Nest desertion by a cowbird host: an antiparasite behavior or a response to egg loss? Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 917 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Roskaft, F. Takasu, A. Moksnes, and B. G. Stokke Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defenses against brood parasitism Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2006; 17(5): 700 - 708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Aviles, J. J. Soler, T. Perez-Contreras, M. Soler, and A. P. Moller Ultraviolet reflectance of great spotted cuckoo eggs and egg discrimination by magpies Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2006; 17(2): 310 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. Lawes and T. R. Marthews When will rejection of parasite nestlings by hosts of nonevicting avian brood parasites be favored? A misimprinting-equilibrium model Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2003; 14(6): 757 - 770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Foitzik, B. Fischer, and J. Heinze Arms races between social parasites and their hosts: geographic patterns of manipulation and resistance Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2003; 14(1): 80 - 88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Sorenson and R. B. Payne Molecular Genetic Perspectives on Avian Brood Parasitism Integr. Comp. Biol., April 1, 2002; 42(2): 388 - 400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Roskaft, A. Moksnes, B. G. Stokke, C. Moskat, and M. Honza The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2002; 13(2): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. I. Rothstein, M. A. Patten, and R. C. Fleischer Phylogeny, specialization, and brood parasite--host coevolution: some possible pitfalls of parsimony Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2002; 13(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


