4.5 Article

House sparrows selectively eject parasitic conspecific eggs and incur very low rejection costs

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 1997-2005

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-011-1209-z

关键词

Egg rejection; House sparrow; Intraspecific brood parasitism; Intraspecific competition; Passer domesticus; Selective ejection

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia [RNM 339]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [CGL2007-619401BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most host species of obligate interspecific brood parasites are under strong selection because such parasitism, e.g., that involving evictor nestmates, is highly costly. Egg rejection is one of the most efficient host defences against avian brood parasites. Many hosts have thus evolved egg-recognition ability and rejection behaviour. However, this defensive mechanism has not evolved in most species where only intraspecific brood parasitism occurs, probably because (I) the eggs of conspecific females are very similar in appearance, making egg rejection less likely to emerge, and (2) such parasitism is frequently less costly than interspecific parasitism. Using a captive population of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) with a low breeding density, we here provide new evidence showing that this species actually has a fine capacity to discriminate conspecific eggs and to eject them (44.2% of foreign eggs ejected) while incurring very low rejection costs (4.2% of own eggs ejected). This result contradicts those previously found in high-density house sparrow populations in which very high rejection costs and very high clutch desertion rates were reported, probably as a consequence of intraspecific competition and infanticide provoked by the high breeding density. The house sparrow has only rarely been reported as the host of an interspecific brood parasite, which implies that it is a newly described example of an altricial species in which egg ejection has evolved and is maintained in response to intraspecific brood parasitism.

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