IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i2p397-402..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sex roles in egg recognition and egg polymorphism in avian brood parasitism

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Liang
  • Canchao Yang
  • Anton Antonov
  • Frode Fossøy
  • Bård G. Stokke
  • Arne Moksnes
  • Eivin Røskaft
  • Jacqui A. Shykoff
  • Anders P. Møller
  • Fugo Takasu

Abstract

Avian brood parasites impose strong selection on their hosts leading to the evolution of antiparasite defenses like egg recognition and rejection. Discordance and template-based cognitive mechanisms may form the base for egg recognition by hosts. For discordance, hosts recognize eggs that constitute the minority in a clutch as alien, whereas in template-based recognition, hosts recognize eggs as alien when they do not match a template that can be innate or learnt. Template-based recognition by learning can be compromised in host species with polymorphic egg color like Paradoxornis parrotbills, hosts of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus, because a male that learns an egg color in his first breeding attempt can subsequently mate with females having different colors and therefore reject his own eggs. We present a simple conceptual model to understand how an asymmetry in sex roles of care for eggs and egg polymorphism influence the evolution of egg recognition by hosts. We derive host reproductive success in the presence of variation in egg phenotype for both host and parasite. Our model shows that male recognition by learning is disadvantageous unless the host has monomorphic eggs. We suggest that interclutch variation in egg phenotype is the key to understanding the evolution of egg recognition and the sex involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Liang & Canchao Yang & Anton Antonov & Frode Fossøy & Bård G. Stokke & Arne Moksnes & Eivin Røskaft & Jacqui A. Shykoff & Anders P. Møller & Fugo Takasu, 2012. "Sex roles in egg recognition and egg polymorphism in avian brood parasitism," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 397-402.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:397-402.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arr203
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce E. Lyon, 2003. "Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6931), pages 495-499, April.
    2. Bill M. Strausberger & Stephen I. Rothstein, 2009. "Parasitic cowbirds may defeat host defense by causing rejecters to misimprint on cowbird eggs," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(4), pages 691-699.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Öst & Kim Jaatinen, 2015. "Smart and safe? Antipredator behavior and breeding success are related to head size in a wild bird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1371-1378.
    2. Francisco Ruiz-Raya & Manuel Soler & Lucía Ll Sánchez-Pérez & Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo, 2015. "Could a Factor That Does Not Affect Egg Recognition Influence the Decision of Rejection?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Miklós Bán & Csaba Moskát & Zoltán Barta & Márk E. Hauber, 2013. "Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for egg rejection by a cuckoo host," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(4), pages 1014-1021.

    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:23:y:2012:i:2:p:397-402.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.