2010
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-1109-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Post-ejection nest-desertion of common cuckoo hosts: a second defense mechanism or avoiding reduced reproductive success?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moskát et al. ). As these warblers lay one egg per day (Leisler & Schulze‐Hagen ), this was the fourth day following the appearance of the first host egg in a clutch.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Moskát et al. ). As these warblers lay one egg per day (Leisler & Schulze‐Hagen ), this was the fourth day following the appearance of the first host egg in a clutch.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We categorized it as post‐ejection nest desertion (sensu Moskát et al. ), where desertion was probably caused by the reduced clutch size. As ‘post‐ejection nest desertion’ was a quick response here (observed after 1 d the experiment started), reducing potential response period of host from 6 d to only one, we omitted this nest from the data set used for statistical analyses of single (green) parasitic eggs.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, desertions sometimes occur after successful ejections of the parasitic eggs. These post‐ejection nest desertions frequently occur in small clutches, but rarely in large clutches, suggesting that they are a response to small clutches (Moskát et al ). Thus, caution is needed when considering desertion as a genuine response to brood parasitism.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…;Roldan & Soler 2011;Kilner & Langmore 2011;. From the parasite's point of view, the lack of related nest mates determines the absence of indirect costs of within-brood competition, which favours the evolution of strategies that maximize the success of the individual parasitic chick(Godfray 1995;Lichtenstein 2001), such as removal or destruction of host eggs during laying(Davies & Brooke 1988;Soler et al 1997;Payne 2005), eviction of host eggs and chicks from the nest(Rothstein 1990;Honza et al 2007) and killing of host nest mates by the newly hatched parasitic chick(Spottiswoode & Koorevaar 2012).These strategies pose costs to the hosts that range from moderate (one or more host chicks can fledge) to severe (loss of the entire host clutch), generating a gradient of parasite virulence(Kilner 2005) that is likely to determine the variation in the evolution of host defences(Servedio & Hauber 2006;Soler 2013), such as recognition and ejection of foreign eggs and/or chicks(Davies & Brooke 1989;Langmore et al 2003;Davies 2011), desertion of parasitized nests(Moskát et al 2011;Krüger 2011) and mobbing of parasitic…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%