IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i5p891-897..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Egg mimicry, not the sight of a common cuckoo, is the cue for parasitic egg rejection

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriela Štětková
  • Michal Šulc
  • Václav Jelínek
  • Anna Hughes
  • Marcel Honza

Abstract

Many studies have found that if hosts observe a brood parasite at their nest, they use it as a cue to reject parasitic eggs. However, most previous work has simulated brood parasitic events by exposing a stuffed parasite near a host’s nest. Responses to the presence of a real parasite have not yet been adequately studied under natural conditions. We therefore investigated whether great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) are more likely to reject a parasitic egg if they see a parasitizing common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) at their nest than if the parasite approaches the host nest unnoticed. Using video recordings of 70 nests, we showed that spotting a cuckoo at the nest did not increase the rejection rate of parasitic eggs, even if hosts saw the cuckoo repeatedly. Hosts instead used the level of mimicry in the background color for cuckoo egg rejection. Since not every visit by the cuckoo leads to parasitism, seeing the brood parasite may not be a reliable enough cue for the host. Therefore, our results suggest that the sight of a cuckoo at the nest may not have as severe consequences for it as previously thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriela Štětková & Michal Šulc & Václav Jelínek & Anna Hughes & Marcel Honza, 2023. "Egg mimicry, not the sight of a common cuckoo, is the cue for parasitic egg rejection," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 891-897.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:5:p:891-897.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arad058
    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:34:y:2023:i:5:p:891-897.. 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.