Different recognition cues reveal the decision rules used for egg rejection by hosts of a variably mimetic avian brood parasite

Colina, Alicia de la; Pompilio, Lorena; Hauber, Márk E.; Reboreda, Juan C.; Mahler, Bettina

doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0515-9

Cited by 55 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chromatic distance is but one component of broader sensory/perceptual (de la Colina et al, 2012) and cognition-dependent (Hauber and Sherman, 2001;Moskát and Hauber, 2007;Croston and Hauber, 2015) processes that ultimately result in the complex behavioral decision to accept or reject a parasitic egg. For example, there are a growing number of studies showing that perceptual difference alone does not fully explain patterns of egg rejection behavior (Moskát and Hauber, 2007;Moskát et al, 2010;Cassey et al, 2008;Stoddard and Stevens, 2011;Bán et al, 2013;Stevens et al, 2013;Croston and Hauber, 2014a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of egg-nest contrast in the rejection of brood parasitic eggs

Aidala

Croston

Schwartz

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hosts of avian brood parasites can avoid the reproductive costs of raising genetically unrelated offspring by rejecting parasitic eggs. The perceptual cues and controls mediating parasitic egg discrimination and ejection are well studied: hosts are thought to use differences in egg color, brightness, maculation, size and shape to discriminate between their own and foreign eggs. Most theories of brood parasitism implicitly assume that the primary criteria to which hosts attend when discriminating eggs are differences between the eggs themselves. However, this assumption is confounded by the degree to which chromatic and achromatic characteristics of the nest lining co-vary with egg coloration, so that egg-nest contrast per se might be the recognition cue driving parasitic egg detection. Here, we systematically tested whether and how egg-nest contrast itself contributes to foreign egg discrimination. In an artificial parasitism experiment, we independently manipulated egg color and nest lining color of the egg-ejector American robin (Turdus migratorius), a host of the obligate brood parasitic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). We hypothesized that the degree of contrast between foreign eggs and the nest background would affect host egg rejection behavior. We predicted that experimentally decreasing egg-nest chromatic and achromatic contrast (i.e. rendering parasitic eggs more cryptic against the nest lining) would decrease rejection rates, while increasing egg-nest contrast would increase rejection rates. In contrast to our predictions, egg-nest contrast was not a significant predictor of egg ejection patterns. Instead, egg color significantly predicted responses to parasitism. We conclude that eggegg differences are the primary drivers of egg rejection in this system. Future studies should test for the effects of egg-nest contrast per se in predicting parasitic egg recognition in other host-parasite systems, including those hosts building enclosed nests and those parasites laying cryptic eggs, as an alternative to hypothesized effects of egg-egg contrast.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of egg-nest contrast in the rejection of brood parasitic eggs

Aidala

Croston

Schwartz

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, Rothstein's (1982) T A B L E 2 Model-averaged mean effect estimates (log-odds) and 95% confidence intervals for the influence of model egg parameters on egg rejection outcomes in American robins from the top three models (see Table 1) F I G U R E 3 Rejection rates of experimental eggs placed in American robin nests separated by study (this study vs. Rothstein, 1982). Error bars represent approximate binomial standard error of rejection rates many different avian brood parasite-host species (de la Colina, et al, 2012;Croston & Hauber, 2014;López-de-Hierro & Moreno-Rueda, 2010;Moskát, et al, 2008;Segura, Di Sallo, Mahler, & Reboreda, 2016;Underwood & Sealy, 2006b). Generally, the relative difference between own and foreign egg background coloration seems to be the most important determinant of whether hosts accept or reject foreign eggs (Cassey, et al, 2008;Hauber et al, 2015;Moskát et al, 2008;Spottiswoode & Stevens, 2010).…”

Section: Differences From Rothstein's (1982) Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which egg features predict egg rejection responses in American robins? Replicating Rothstein's (1982) study

Luro

Igic

Croston

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rothstein (Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 11, 1982, 229) was one of the first comprehensive studies to examine how different egg features influence egg rejection behaviors of avian brood parasite–hosts. The methods and conclusions of Rothstein (1982) laid the foundation for subsequent experimental brood parasitism studies over the past thirty years, but its results have never been evaluated with replication. Here, we partially replicated Rothstein's (1982) experiments using parallel artificial model egg treatments to simulate cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism in American robin (Turdus migratorius) nests. We compared our data with those of Rothstein (1982) and confirmed most of its original findings: (1) robins reject model eggs that differ from the appearance of a natural robin egg toward that of a natural cowbird egg in background color, size, and maculation; (2) rejection responses were best predicted by model egg background color; and (3) model eggs differing by two or more features from natural robin eggs were more likely to be rejected than model eggs differing by one feature alone. In contrast with Rothstein's (1982) conclusion that American robin egg recognition is not specifically tuned toward rejection of brown‐headed cowbird eggs, we argue that our results and those of other recent studies of robin egg rejection suggest a discrimination bias toward rejection of cowbird eggs. Future work on egg recognition will benefit from utilizing a range of model eggs varying continuously in background color, maculation patterning, and size in combination with avian visual modeling, rather than using model eggs which vary only discretely.

show abstract

“…More specifically, why aren't all duck eggs rejected? Intermediate levels of egg rejection are not unique to our study, and they remain a puzzling feature of brood parasitehost coevolution in general, including interspecific brood parasitism (de la Colina et al, 2012;Hauber et al, 2006;Rothstein, 1990;Takasu, 1998). We now review several hypotheses for intermediate rejection and discuss their relevance to coots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Given that hosts are capable of the very fine-scale discrimination required to accurately distinguish among eggs of conspecifics, shouldn't they always be able to recognize and reject the extremely different duck eggs (Figure 2)? This assumption is based both on theoretical considerations of recognition systems (Sherman, Reeve, & Pfennig, 1997), plus empirical evidence that egg rejection rates correlate with the degree of difference between host and parasite eggs in some brood-parasitic systems (de la Colina et al, 2012;Lotem et al, 1995;Rothstein, 1982;Spottiswoode and Stevens, 2010). Thus a key question, and one on which the rejection as incidental by-product hypothesis depends, is whether the evolution of egg rejection driven solely by conspecific brood parasitism could result in the intermediate rejection rates that we observed for the highly nonmimetic eggs of Heteronetta.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%