IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i4p783-789..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct and indirect assessment of parasitism risk by a cuckoo host

Author

Listed:
  • Justin A. Welbergen
  • Nicholas B. Davies

Abstract

When the risk of encountering enemies varies in space or in time, this may select for plasticity of costly defenses. Hosts are known to vary both mobbing of adult cuckoos and egg rejection with spatiotemporal variation in brood parasitism, but it is unclear what parasitism cues they use to guide their defense plasticity. There is evidence that hosts use cuckoo activity near their nests as a direct cue, but cuckoos are secretive and resemble dangerous birds of prey so hosts may use indirect environmental predictors of parasitism too, such as their nest’s proximity to potential cuckoo lookout perches. Here, we compared reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nest defense responses with models of various enemies at a parasitized site and at a site where no common cuckoos Cuculus canorus were present. Reed warblers approached model cuckoos less closely and mobbed them less at the unparasitized site. However, at both sites, the warblers reduced their mobbing in a similar manner with increasing distance to the nearest potential cuckoo perch. The variation in response was specific to cuckoos and was not shown to harmless controls. Thus, hosts use both direct (cuckoo presence) and indirect cues (perch distance) of parasitism risk for modulating their costly defenses against their secretive parasite. We suggest that reciprocal selection for detection and suppression of direct and indirect cues provides a unifying feature of cuckoo–host arms races.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin A. Welbergen & Nicholas B. Davies, 2012. "Direct and indirect assessment of parasitism risk by a cuckoo host," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 783-789.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:4:p:783-789.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ars031
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin A. Welbergen & Nicholas B. Davies, 2011. "A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(3), pages 574-579.
    2. Tatjana Krama & Indrikis Krams, 2005. "Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 37-40, January.
    3. N. E. Langmore & W. E. Feeney & J. Crowe-Riddell & H. Luan & K. M. Louwrens & A. Cockburn, 2012. "Learned recognition of brood parasitic cuckoos in the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 798-805.
    4. Daniela Campobello & Spencer G. Sealy, 2011. "Use of social over personal information enhances nest defense against avian brood parasitism," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(2), pages 422-428.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. N. E. Langmore & W. E. Feeney & J. Crowe-Riddell & H. Luan & K. M. Louwrens & A. Cockburn, 2012. "Learned recognition of brood parasitic cuckoos in the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 798-805.
    2. Justin A Welbergen, 2018. "When resistance is futile - tolerance in avian brood parasite hosts: a comment on Avilés," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(3), pages 525-526.
    3. Jesús M Avilés, 2018. "Can hosts tolerate avian brood parasites? An appraisal of mechanisms," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(3), pages 509-519.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William E. Feeney & Mary Caswell Stoddard & Rebecca M. Kilner & Naomi E. Langmore, 2014. ""Jack-of-all-trades" egg mimicry in the brood parasitic Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(6), pages 1365-1373.
    2. Holger Zimmermann & Radim Blažek & Matej Polačik & Martin Reichard, 2022. "Individual experience as a key to success for the cuckoo catfish brood parasitism," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Daniela Campobello & Maurizio Sarà & James F. Hare, 2012. "Under my wing: lesser kestrels and jackdaws derive reciprocal benefits in mixed-species colonies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 425-433.
    4. David Wheatcroft & Trevor D. Price, 2015. "Rates of signal evolution are associated with the nature of interspecific communication," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 83-90.
    5. 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.
    6. N. E. Langmore & W. E. Feeney & J. Crowe-Riddell & H. Luan & K. M. Louwrens & A. Cockburn, 2012. "Learned recognition of brood parasitic cuckoos in the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 798-805.

    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:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:4:p:783-789.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.