Avian eggs differ so much in their colour and patterning from species to species that any attempt to account for this diversity might initially seem doomed to failure. Here I present a critical review of the literature which, when combined with the results of some comparative analyses, suggests that just a few selective agents can explain much of the variation in egg appearance. Ancestrally, bird eggs were probably white and immaculate. Ancient diversification in nest location, and hence in the clutch's vulnerability to attack by predators, can explain basic differences between bird families in egg appearance. The ancestral white egg has been retained by species whose nests are safe from attack by predators, while those that have moved to a more vulnerable nest site are now more likely to lay brown eggs, covered in speckles, just as Wallace hypothesized more than a century ago. Even blue eggs might be cryptic in a subset of nests built in vegetation. It is possible that some species have subsequently turned these ancient adaptations to new functions, for example to signal female quality, to protect eggs from damaging solar radiation, or to add structural strength to shells when calcium is in short supply. The threat of predation, together with the use of varying nest sites, appears to have increased the diversity of egg colouring seen among species within families, and among clutches within species. Brood parasites and their hosts have probably secondarily influenced the diversity of egg appearance. Each drives the evolution of the other's egg colour and patterning, as hosts attempt to avoid exploitation by rejecting odd-looking eggs from their nests, and parasites attempt to outwit their hosts by laying eggs that will escape detection. This co-evolutionary arms race has increased variation in egg appearance both within and between species, in parasites and in hosts, sometimes resulting in the evolution of egg colour polymorphisms. It has also reduced variation in egg appearance within host clutches, although the benefit thus gained by hosts is not clear.

Cuckoo nestlings that evict all other young from the nest soon after hatching impose a high reproductive cost on their hosts. In defence, hosts have coevolved strategies to prevent brood parasitism. Puzzlingly, they do not extend beyond the egg stage. Thus, hosts adept at recognizing foreign eggs remain vulnerable to exploitation by cuckoo nestlings. Here we show that the breach of host egg defences by cuckoos creates a new stage in the coevolutionary cycle. We found that defences used during the egg-laying period by host superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) are easily evaded by the Horsfield's bronze-cuckoo (Chrysococcyx basalis), a specialist fairy-wren brood parasite. However, although hosts never deserted their own broods, they later abandoned 40% of nests containing a lone Horsfield's bronze-cuckoo nestling, and 100% of nests with a lone shining bronze-cuckoo nestling (Chrysococcyx lucidus), an occasional fairy-wren brood parasite. Our experiments demonstrate that host discrimination against evictor-cuckoo nestlings is possible, and suggest that it has selected for the evolution of nestling mimicry in bronze-cuckoos.

No abstract

Cooperative breeding systems are characterized by nonbreeding helpers that assist breeders in offspring care. However, the benefits to offspring of being fed by parents and helpers in cooperatively breeding birds can be difficult to detect. We offer experimental evidence that helper effects can be obscured by an undocumented maternal tactic. In superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus), mothers breeding in the presence of helpers lay smaller eggs of lower nutritional content that produce lighter chicks, as compared with those laying eggs in the absence of helpers. Helpers compensate fully for such reductions in investment and allow mothers to benefit through increased survival to the next breeding season. We suggest that failure to consider maternal egg-investment strategies can lead to underestimation of the force of selection acting on helping in avian cooperative breeders.

No abstract

Avian parents and social insect colonies are victimized by interspecific brood parasites-cheats that procure costly care for their dependent offspring by leaving them in another species' nursery. Birds and insects defend themselves from attack by brood parasites; their defences in turn select counter-strategies in the parasite, thus setting in motion antagonistic co-evolution between the two parties. Despite their considerable taxonomic disparity, here we show striking parallels in the way that co-evolution between brood parasites and their hosts proceeds in insects and birds. First, we identify five types of co-evolutionary arms race from the empirical literature, which are common to both systems. These are: (a) directional co-evolution of weaponry and armoury; (b) furtiveness in the parasite countered by strategies in the host to expose the parasite; (c) specialist parasites mimicking hosts who escape by diversifying their genetic signatures; (d) generalist parasites mimicking hosts who escape by favouring signatures that force specialization in the parasite; and (e) parasites using crypsis to evade recognition by hosts who then simplify their signatures to make the parasite more detectable. Arms races a and c are well characterized in the theoretical literature on co-evolution, but the other types have received little or no formal theoretical attention. Empirical work suggests that hosts are doomed to lose arms races b and e to the parasite, in the sense that parasites typically evade host defences and successfully parasitize the nest. Nevertheless hosts may win when the co-evolutionary trajectory follows arms race a, c or d. Next, we show that there are four common outcomes of the co-evolutionary arms race for hosts. These are: (1) successful resistance; (2) the evolution of defence portfolios (or multiple lines of resistance); (3) acceptance of the parasite; and (4) tolerance of the parasite. The particular outcome is not determined by the type of preceding arms race but depends more on whether hosts or parasites control the co-evolutionary trajectory: tolerance is an outcome that parasites inflict on hosts, whereas the other three outcomes are more dependent on properties intrinsic to the host species. Finally, our review highlights considerable interspecific variation in the complexity and depth of host defence portfolios. Whether this variation is adaptive or merely reflects evolutionary lag is unclear. We propose an adaptive explanation, which centres on the relative strength of two opposing processes: strategy-facilitation, in which one line of host defence promotes the evolution of another form of resistance, and strategy-blocking, in which one line of defence may relax selection on another so completely that it causes it to decay. We suggest that when strategy-facilitation outweighs strategy-blocking, hosts will possess complex defence portfolios and we identify selective conditions in which this is likely to be the case.

Nestling birds present vivid gapes and produce loud calls as they solicit food, but the complexity of the display is poorly understood. Here we explain the function of reed warbler begging signals and show how they are exploited by the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, a brood parasite. Reed warbler parents integrate visual and vocal signals from their young to adjust their provisioning rates, and the two signals convey more accurate information about offspring need than either does alone. The cuckoo chick has a particularly striking begging display which has been suggested to be irresistible to host parents. However, we show that the cuckoo, reared alone in the nest, presents a de®cient visual display, and elicits the same amount of care as a reed warbler brood only by compensating with its exaggerated vocal display. Therefore the cuckoo succeeds not through mimicry of the host brood begging signals, but by tuning into the sensory predispositions of its hosts.

The evolution of family life has traditionally been studied in parallel by behavioral ecologists and quantitative geneticists. The former focus on parent-offspring conflict and whether parents or offspring control provisioning, whereas the latter concentrate on the coadaptation of parental supply and offspring demand. Here we show how prenatal effects on offspring begging can link the two different approaches. Using theoretical and experimental analyses, we show that when offspring control provisioning, prenatal effects primarily serve the parent's interests: Selection on parents drives coadaptation of parent and offspring traits. In contrast, when parents control provisioning, prenatal effects primarily serve the offspring's interests: Selection on the offspring drives coadaptation of parent and offspring traits. Parent-offspring conflict may thus be responsible for the selective forces that generate parent-offspring coadaptation.