4.3 Article

No evidence for recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers

Journal

JOURNAL OF AVIAN BIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 31-38

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.330106.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Failure to recognise own eggs (recognition errors) may be an important selective force behind acceptance of parasitic eggs, leading to a balance between rejecters and acceptors in a host population (the equilibrium hypothesis). We predicted that recognition errors should occur frequently among host species with intermediate rejection rates, whose rejection behaviour shows many conditional responses. The reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus and great reed warbler A. arundinaceus fulfil these requirements. These two species were therefore used in an experiment where host birds were exposed to a common cuckoo Cuculus canorus dummy, either < 2 m or 5-10 m from the nest, at fishponds in southern Moravia (Czech Republic). The hosts responded to the cuckoo dummy, great reed warblers being much more aggressive than reed warblers, and both species being more aggressive towards the dummy when it was close to the nest than when it was farther away. We furthermore predicted that there should be more eggs rejected (ejected or nest abandoned) due to recognition errors among hosts exposed to a dummy close to the nest than among both those exposed to a dummy farther away from the nest and towards controls not exposed to cuckoo dummies. When comparing egg loss between groups of birds that were exposed to a cuckoo dummy with those that were not, we found no significant difference. However, partial egg loss was frequent among hosts in the studied population, most probably due to cuckoo depredation. We discuss why there were no detectable recognition errors in the studied population, when other researchers have claimed to have found such errors in host populations elsewhere.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available