Host responses to interspecific brood parasitism: a by-product of adaptations to conspecific parasitism?

Samaš, Peter; Hauber, Márk E.; Cassey, Phillip; Grim, Tomáš

doi:10.1186/1742-9994-11-34

Cited by 55 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(188 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, a host species may reject relatively nonmimetic eggs, but this may just be a by-product of adaptations that evolved in the context of conspecific parasitism (López-de-Hierro and Moreno-Rueda 2010; Samas et al 2014), although this latter problem is unlikely to be important in the present study species (Kempenaers et al 1995;review in Griffith et al 2002). Fourth, experimental nests may be deserted not because of the introduction of experimental eggs but due to any unrelated disturbance; therefore, it is necessary to use control (unmanipulated) nests to determine whether desertion represents a specific response to parasitism (Samas et al 2014). For these reasons, it is necessary to use conspecific, mimetic and nonmimetic experimental eggs and control nests to reveal both host egg discrimination ability and the evolutionary origin of this ability (Grim 2005).…”

Section: Egg Experimentscontrasting

confidence: 44%

“…This is most likely because we used standard tit nest boxes with small entrances (entrance diameter = 3.5 cm). Although cuckoo females are able to squirt the egg even into small entrance cavities (Davies 2000), such layings cannot establish a viable cuckoo gens (host race)-cuckoo chicks would not fledge from a small entrance cavity and the strain would go extinct in the very first generation (see also Grim et al 2011;Samas et al 2014). Therefore, a cuckoo gens specialized on parasitizing tits (or any other bird species) breeding in small cavities (natural or artificial) cannot exist in principle.…”

Section: Aq8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the use of too "mimetic" experimental eggs can lead to the erroneous conclusion that the particular host did not evolve an ability to reject foreign eggs (Grim 2005). Third, a host species may reject relatively nonmimetic eggs, but this may just be a by-product of adaptations that evolved in the context of conspecific parasitism (López-de-Hierro and Moreno-Rueda 2010; Samas et al 2014), although this latter problem is unlikely to be important in the present study species (Kempenaers et al 1995;review in Griffith et al 2002). Fourth, experimental nests may be deserted not because of the introduction of experimental eggs but due to any unrelated disturbance; therefore, it is necessary to use control (unmanipulated) nests to determine whether desertion represents a specific response to parasitism (Samas et al 2014).…”

Section: Egg Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Geographic variation in egg ejection rate by great tits across 2 continents

Liang

Møller

Stokke

et al. 2016

BEHECO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Egg Experimentscontrasting

confidence: 44%

Section: Aq8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Egg Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geographic variation in egg ejection rate by great tits across 2 continents

Liang

Møller

Stokke

et al. 2016

BEHECO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several species of European thrushes (genus Turdus) reject foreign eggs, yet the evolutionary causes of this behavior remained unclear. Recently, we concluded that conspecific (CBP), rather than interspecific brood parasitism (IBP) is responsible for the patterns of foreign egg rejection in these taxa [1]. In his comment M. Soler does not agree with this conclusion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 48%

The evolutionary causes of egg rejection in European thrushes (Turdusspp.): a reply to M. Soler

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CorrespondenceA response to: Soler: No evidence of conspecific brood parasitism provoking egg rejection in thrushes. Frontiers in Zoology 2014, 11:68. Several species of European thrushes (genus Turdus) reject foreign eggs, yet the evolutionary causes of this behavior remained unclear. Recently, we concluded that conspecific (CBP), rather than interspecific brood parasitism (IBP) is responsible for the patterns of foreign egg rejection in these taxa [1]. In his comment M. Soler does not agree with this conclusion. Here we address each of his four main points to demonstrate the principles that (i) a theory is never out of date but is either supported or discredited, and (ii) it is not the use of references, but instead the collection and analysis of new data, which advances scientific progress.First, Soler argues that the costs of CPB are too low to select for the evolution of host defenses and that the foreign eggs are too similar to host eggs for effective discrimination. That costs of CPB seem to be generally low across various species does not necessarily mean that such costs are always low (see also p. 51 in [2]). For example, IBP is generally highly costly to hosts but in several hosts of the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), there is little or no detectable cost of IBP [3]. Regarding egg similarity, inter-clutch variation in both Turdus species that we studied is sufficiently high to allow for foreign conspecific egg discrimination both in theory [4] and in reality [1].Second, Soler takes issue with the maintenance versus decay of egg rejection behaviors as an antiparasitic host defense in the absence of ongoing brood parasitism. Crucially, the empirical studies referenced by Soler reported that the rejection costs associated with the ejection of foreign eggs were essentially nil. In contrast, we documented non-negligible rejection errors and costs, even in response to foreign conspecific eggs. Therefore our study system does not fit the critical assumption of Soler's argument which holds only for "a trait which does not decrease individual fitness".Third, Soler argues that aggression towards cuckoo dummies combined with the foster parents' reluctance to feed cuckoo nestlings are a clear indication of past evolutionary exposure to IBP. This argument is flawed (see [5]). Song thrush (Turdus philomelos) show very low and nonspecific aggression towards cuckoo dummies and cuckoo chicks in experimental nests die not because of host chick discrimination but because the smooth nest-cup design prevents successful eviction of host nestmates by the hatchling cuckoo, forcing it into fatal competition with host chicks. In turn, blackbirds (T. merula) are aggressive not only to cuckoo dummies but to any intruders near their nests, including harmless pigeons (Columba livia), indicating that their aggression did not specifically evolve in response to IBP [6]. Cuckoo chicks cross-fostered to blackbird nests also do not survive to fledging but not because blackbirds were reluctant to feed cuckoo chicks, as the paras...

show abstract

“…Although the tendency is to often assume that interspecific parasitism is the evolutionary driver of host traits, perhaps because interspecific parasitism is often more obvious and easily detected than conspecific parasitism, it is possible that some signatures of coevolution might instead be fuelled by the brood parasitism within the hosts themselves (Freeman, 1988;Lahti, 2006;Lyon and Eadie, 2004). In these taxa it has proven difficult to disentangle the relative roles of conspecific and interspecific brood parasitism as drivers of host defenses (Freeman, 1988;Grendstad et al, 1999;Jackson, 1992;Lahti, 2006;Peer et al, 2007;Rothstein, 2001;Samas et al, 2014). However, one potentially powerful method for distinguishing between conspecific and interspecific interactions as the agent of selection is a geographical comparison of egg rejection behavior in regions where hosts are sympatric versus allopatric with their interspecific brood parasites (Lahti, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%