IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v17y2006i6p917-924.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nest desertion by a cowbird host: an antiparasite behavior or a response to egg loss?

Author

Listed:
  • KL Kosciuch
  • TH Parker
  • BK Sandercock

Abstract

Natural selection can favor songbirds that desert nests containing eggs of the parasitic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). However, the high variability in desertion of parasitized nests within species is perplexing in light of the typically high costs of parasitism. Because nest desertion can also be a response to partial clutch predation, we first asked if Bell's vireos (Vireo bellii) deserted nests in response to the presence of cowbird eggs (antiparasite response hypothesis) or to egg removal by predators and female cowbirds (egg predation hypothesis). Second, we asked whether variation in nest desertion was due to intrinsic differences among individuals or to variation in nest contents. We monitored a large number of nests (n = 494) and performed a clutch manipulation experiment to test these hypotheses. The number of vireo eggs that remained in a nest was a strong predictor of desertion both within and among pairs. Neither the presence of a single cowbird egg, which leads to nest failure for this host, nor the number of cowbird eggs received in a vireo nest influenced nest desertion. Furthermore, vireos did not desert experimental nests when we immediately exchanged cowbird eggs for vireo eggs but deserted if we removed vireo eggs and replaced them with cowbird eggs the following morning. Desertion of parasitized nests by Bell's vireos can be almost entirely explained as a response to partial or complete clutch loss and does not appear to have been altered by selection from brood parasitism. Copyright 2006.

Suggested Citation

  • KL Kosciuch & TH Parker & BK Sandercock, 2006. "Nest desertion by a cowbird host: an antiparasite behavior or a response to egg loss?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(6), pages 917-924, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:17:y:2006:i:6:p:917-924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arl025
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:beheco:v:17:y:2006:i:6:p:917-924. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    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.