IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i3p517-524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offspring development mode and the evolution of brood parasitism

Author

Listed:
  • Donald C. Dearborn
  • Lauren S. MacDade
  • Scott Robinson
  • Alix D. Dowling Fink
  • Mark L. Fink

Abstract

In the evolution of interspecific social parasites, the shift from facultative to obligate brood parasitism is thought to be driven by the cost of parental investment. Accordingly, avian brood parasites with precocial young are almost exclusively facultative parasites, whereas those with altricial young are almost exclusively obligate parasites. Surprisingly, then, North American cuckoos (Coccyzus spp.) have altricial young but are described as facultative brood parasites. Because little is known about parasitism by Coccyzus cuckoos, we explored the potential importance of heterogeneric brood parasitism to their reproductive strategy. In contrast to the existing set of anecdotal reports of cuckoos parasitizing songbirds, we found no evidence of cuckoo parasitism in 10 197 songbird nests, despite spatial and temporal overlap between cuckoos and potential hosts and despite varied food availability. Experiments revealed a lack of egg-rejection behavior in some of the most common potential hosts, suggesting that parasitic eggs would be accepted if laid and that we would detect cuckoo parasitism if it occurred regularly. We propose that reports of Coccyzus cuckoos parasitizing songbirds stem from errant attempts to parasitize other cuckoos. This resolves a theoretical paradox about interspecific parasitism and mode of offspring development, as we suggest that Coccyzus cuckoos have not evolved to parasitize other species. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald C. Dearborn & Lauren S. MacDade & Scott Robinson & Alix D. Dowling Fink & Mark L. Fink, 2009. "Offspring development mode and the evolution of brood parasitism," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(3), pages 517-524.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:517-524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp026
    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.

    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:20:y:2009:i:3:p:517-524. 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.