4.5 Article

Does the cuckoo benefit from laying unusually strong eggs?

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 1893-1900

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.016

关键词

Acrocephalus palustris; brood parasitism; cuckoo; Cuculus canorus; eggshell strength; marsh warbler; mimicry; puncture resistance

资金

  1. Torstein Erbos Gavefond
  2. Research Council of Norway [151641/432]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brood-parasitic birds such as cuckoos and cowbirds lay eggs with unusual by strong shells. Three main hypotheses have been proposed to explain the adaptive significance of this trait. The present study focused on the puncture resistance hypothesis and tested its critical prediction that increased eggshell strength enhances the probability that the parasitic egg is accepted by the host. To address the problem, we experimentally parasitized marsh warbler, Acrocephalus palustris, nests with three types of real eggs having similar size but differing in eggshell strength and/or mimicry: (1) great reed warbler, Acrocephalus arundinaceus, eggs painted to be nonmimetic; (2) common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, eggs painted in the same way; and (3) unmanipulated cuckoo eggs. When we controlled for mimicry, ejection of strong-shelled (cuckoo) eggs was considerably more costly than ejection of weak-shelled (great reed warbler) eggs. However, nonmimetic cuckoo eggs were not more likely to be accepted than nonmimetic great reed warbler eggs, suggesting no effect of eggshell strength alone on rejection decisions. Mimetic cuckoo eggs were accepted more often than the eggs painted to be nonmimetic suggesting that mimicry primarily determines the probability of rejection. Thus, we found no support for the puncture resistance hypothesis in marsh warblers, which is a host with well-developed defence mechanisms against cuckoo parasitism. (C) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据