IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v422y2003i6931d10.1038_nature01505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce E. Lyon

    (University of California)

Abstract

Birds parasitized by interspecific brood parasites often adopt defences based on egg recognition but such behaviours are puzzlingly rare in species parasitized by members of the same species. Here I show that conspecific egg recognition is frequent, accurate and used in three defences that reduce the high costs of conspecific brood parasitism in American coots. Hosts recognized and rejected many parasitic eggs, reducing the fitness costs of parasitism by half. Recognition without rejection also occurred and some hosts banished parasitic eggs to inferior outer incubation positions. Clutch size comparisons revealed that females combine egg recognition and counting to make clutch size decisions—by counting their own eggs, while ignoring distinctive parasitic eggs, females avoid a maladaptive clutch size reduction. This is clear evidence that female birds use visual rather than tactile cues to regulate their clutch sizes, and provides a rare example of the ecological and evolutionary context of counting in animals.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce E. Lyon, 2003. "Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6931), pages 495-499, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:422:y:2003:i:6931:d:10.1038_nature01505
    DOI: 10.1038/nature01505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01505
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nature01505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miklós Bán & Csaba Moskát & Zoltán Barta & Márk E. Hauber, 2013. "Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for egg rejection by a cuckoo host," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(4), pages 1014-1021.
    2. Francisco Ruiz-Raya & Manuel Soler & Lucía Ll Sánchez-Pérez & Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo, 2015. "Could a Factor That Does Not Affect Egg Recognition Influence the Decision of Rejection?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Wei Liang & Canchao Yang & Anton Antonov & Frode Fossøy & Bård G. Stokke & Arne Moksnes & Eivin Røskaft & Jacqui A. Shykoff & Anders P. Møller & Fugo Takasu, 2012. "Sex roles in egg recognition and egg polymorphism in avian brood parasitism," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 397-402.
    4. Markus Öst & Kim Jaatinen, 2015. "Smart and safe? Antipredator behavior and breeding success are related to head size in a wild bird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1371-1378.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:422:y:2003:i:6931:d:10.1038_nature01505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.