2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104532
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Persistent fine-tuning of egg rejection based on parasitic timing in a cuckoo host even after relaxation of parasitism pressure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The current research already demonstrated the feasibility of not only experimental egg rejection (yes/no) research on captive subjects with known familial histories and breeding experience but also a future ability to manipulate both experiential (e.g., prior breeding and egg-rejection experience; Amundsen et al, 2002; Moskát et al, 2014) and physiological (e.g., endocrine factors: Abolins-Abols & Hauber, 2018; Ruiz-Raya, 2021) contexts in which egg-rejection behaviors can be studied. For example, in our Experiment 2, we varied the day of incubation at which the foreign egg type was introduced into the nests, although in this species this did not impact the pattern of egg rejection statistically (but see in other species: Liu et al, 2021; Moskát & Hauber, 2007). Although we must be fair to acknowledge that the ecological/natural history validity of egg-rejection studies with doves has a narrowly limited scope (because our focal dove species is neither parasitized nor ever raises brood parasitic nestlings to fledging in the wild), yet the occurrence of occasional field parasitism on other dove species (Rothstein, 1975), and the detection of intermediate egg-rejection patterns of doves in the wild (Peer & Bollinger, 1998) both lend some validity to our search and test of using the columbine species-group as a potential captive model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The current research already demonstrated the feasibility of not only experimental egg rejection (yes/no) research on captive subjects with known familial histories and breeding experience but also a future ability to manipulate both experiential (e.g., prior breeding and egg-rejection experience; Amundsen et al, 2002; Moskát et al, 2014) and physiological (e.g., endocrine factors: Abolins-Abols & Hauber, 2018; Ruiz-Raya, 2021) contexts in which egg-rejection behaviors can be studied. For example, in our Experiment 2, we varied the day of incubation at which the foreign egg type was introduced into the nests, although in this species this did not impact the pattern of egg rejection statistically (but see in other species: Liu et al, 2021; Moskát & Hauber, 2007). Although we must be fair to acknowledge that the ecological/natural history validity of egg-rejection studies with doves has a narrowly limited scope (because our focal dove species is neither parasitized nor ever raises brood parasitic nestlings to fledging in the wild), yet the occurrence of occasional field parasitism on other dove species (Rothstein, 1975), and the detection of intermediate egg-rejection patterns of doves in the wild (Peer & Bollinger, 1998) both lend some validity to our search and test of using the columbine species-group as a potential captive model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nest sanitation and egg rejection behaviors are performed by removing foreign objects from nests, but they require different cognitive levels. Furthermore, nest sanitation is more common and influences both the egg incubation and nestling feeding stages during reproduction, whereas egg rejection is a more specific behavior focusing on host species and individuals and influences egg incubation or even the early period of egg incubation [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. If a cognitive behavior is more original, it is reasonable to predict that cognition would be easier to achieve when compared with a later evolved behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%