Egg recognition abilities of tit species in the Paridae family: do Indomalayan tits exhibit higher recognition than Palearctic tits?

Jian-Ping Liu; Lei Zhang; Li Zhang; Can-Chao Yang; Cheng-Te Yao; Xin Lu; Anders Pape Møller; Dong-Mei Wan; Wei Liang

doi:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.054

Volume 41 Issue 6

Nov. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Zoological Research > 2020 > 41(6): 726-733

Jian-Ping Liu, Lei Zhang, Li Zhang, Can-Chao Yang, Cheng-Te Yao, Xin Lu, Anders Pape Møller, Dong-Mei Wan, Wei Liang. Egg recognition abilities of tit species in the Paridae family: do Indomalayan tits exhibit higher recognition than Palearctic tits?. Zoological Research, 2020, 41(6): 726-733. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.054

Citation:

Jian-Ping Liu, Lei Zhang, Li Zhang, Can-Chao Yang, Cheng-Te Yao, Xin Lu, Anders Pape Møller, Dong-Mei Wan, Wei Liang. Egg recognition abilities of tit species in the Paridae family: do Indomalayan tits exhibit higher recognition than Palearctic tits?. Zoological Research, 2020, 41(6): 726-733. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.054

Citation:

Jian-Ping Liu, Lei Zhang, Li Zhang, Can-Chao Yang, Cheng-Te Yao, Xin Lu, Anders Pape Møller, Dong-Mei Wan, Wei Liang. Egg recognition abilities of tit species in the Paridae family: do Indomalayan tits exhibit higher recognition than Palearctic tits?. Zoological Research, 2020, 41(6): 726-733. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.054

PDF( 857 KB)

Egg recognition abilities of tit species in the Paridae family: do Indomalayan tits exhibit higher recognition than Palearctic tits?

doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.054

1.
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, Hainan 571158, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Animal Resource and Epidemic Disease Prevention, College of Life Sciences, Liaoning University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110036, China
3.
High Altitude Experimental Station, Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute, Nantou, Taiwan 55244, China
4.
Department of Ecology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China
5.
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
6.
Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay Cedex F-91405, France

Funds: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31772453 and 31970427 to W.L., 31872231 to D.M.W., and 31672303 to C.C.Y.)

More Information

Corresponding author: E-mail: wandongmei@lnu.edu.cn; liangwei@hainnu.edu.cn
Received Date: 2020-02-13
Accepted Date: 2020-08-26

Published Online: 2020-08-30

Publish Date: 2020-11-18

Abstract

- Coevolution,
- Egg recognition,
- Egg rejection,
- Multiple-cuckoo system,
- Paridae

FullText(HTML)

References(57)

References

[1]	Antonov A, Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Spasova V, Vikan JR, Moksnes A, et al. 2011. Egg discrimination in an open nesting passerine under dim light conditions. Ethology, 117(12): 1128−1137. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01969.x
[2]	Avilés JM, Rutila J, Møller AP. 2006. Should the redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus accept or reject cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs?. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58(6): 608−617.
[3]	Carlson A, Sandström U, Olsson K. 1998. Availability and use of natural tree holes by cavity nesting birds in a Swedish deciduous forest. Ardea, 86(1): 109−119.
[4]	Davies NB, De L. Brooke M. 1989. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. Journal of Animal Ecology, 58(1): 207−224. doi: 10.2307/4995
[5]	Davies NB. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. London: T. & A. D. Poyser.
[6]	Davies NB, Welbergen JA. 2009. Social transmission of a host defense against cuckoo parasitism. Science, 324(5932): 1318−1320. doi: 10.1126/science.1172227
[7]	De L. Brooke M, Davies NB. 1988. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature, 335(6191): 630−632. doi: 10.1038/335630a0
[8]	Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. 2007. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7(1): 214. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214
[9]	Du Y, Huo YP, Wan DM, Sun J, Lü YT, Cao J. 2010. Moss selection as nest materials by Parus varius. Chinese Journal of Zoology, 45(4): 144−149. (in Chinese)
[10]	Feeney WE, Welbergen JA, Langmore NE. 2014. Advances in the study of coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45: 227−246. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091603
[11]	Grim T, Samaš P, Procházka P, Rutila J. 2014. Are tits really unsuitable hosts for the common cuckoo?. Ornis Fennica, 91: 166−177.
[12]	Grim T, Samaš P. 2016. Growth performance of nestling cuckoos Cuculus canorus in cavity nesting hosts. Acta Ornithologica, 51(2): 175−188. doi: 10.3161/00016454AO2016.51.2.004
[13]	Grim T. 2016. Are cavity nesters really unsuitable hosts for the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)? An experiment with the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) and collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Sylvia, 52(1): 53−66.
[14]	Hale K, Briskie JV. 2007. Response of introduced European birds in New Zealand to experimental brood parasitism. Journal of Avian Biology, 38(2): 198−204. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2007.03734.x
[15]	Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. 2012. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature, 491(7424): 444−448. doi: 10.1038/nature11631
[16]	Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR, Artemyev AV, Atiénzar F, Bańbura J, et al. 2010. The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithologica, 45(1): 1−26. doi: 10.3161/000164510X516047
[17]	Langmore NE, Feeney WE, Crowe-Riddell J, Luan H, Louwrens KM, Cockburn A. 2012. Learned recognition of brood parasitic cuckoos in the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. Behavioral Ecology, 23(4): 798−805. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ars033
[18]	Liang W, Møller AP, Stokke BG, Yang CC, Kovařík P, Wang HT, et al. 2016. Geographic variation in egg ejection rate by great tits across 2 continents. Behavioral Ecology, 27(5): 1405−1412. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arw061
[19]	Liang W, Yang CC, Wang LW, Møller AP. 2013. Avoiding parasitism by breeding indoors: cuckoo parasitism of hirundines and rejection of eggs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(6): 913−918. doi: 10.1007/s00265-013-1514-9
[20]	Lindholm A, Thomas R. 2000. Between populations of reed warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour, 137(1): 25−42. doi: 10.1163/156853900501854
[21]	Liu JP, Ma LK, Zhang ZQ, Gu DH, Wang JJ, Li JJ, et al. 2017. Maximum frequency of songs reflects body size among male dusky warblers Phylloscopus fuscatus (Passeriformes: Phylloscopidae). The European Zoological Journal, 84(1): 186−192. doi: 10.1080/24750263.2017.1301578
[22]	Martín-Vivaldi M, Soler JJ, Møller AP, Pérez-Contreras T, Soler M. 2013. The importance of nest-site and habitat in egg recognition ability of potential hosts of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Ibis, 155(1): 140−155. doi: 10.1111/ibi.12000
[23]	Maziarz M, Wesołowski T, Hebda G, Cholewa M. 2015. Natural nest-sites of great tits (parus major) in a primeval temperate forest (Bialowieza National Park, Poland). Journal of Ornithology, 156(3): 613−623. doi: 10.1007/s10336-015-1169-6
[24]	Medina I, Langmore NE. 2015. The costs of avian brood parasitism explain variation in egg rejection behaviour in hosts. Biology Letters, 11(7): 20150296. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0296
[25]	Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1987. Cuckoo host interactions in Norwegian mountain areas. Ornis Scandinavica, 18(3): 168−172. doi: 10.2307/3676762
[26]	Moksnes A, Øskaft E R. 1995. Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. Journal of Zoology, 236(4): 625−648. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02736.x
[27]	Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC. 1991. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour, 116(1-2): 64−89. doi: 10.1163/156853990X00365
[28]	Moskát C, Székely T, Kisbenedek T, Karcza Z, Bártol I. 2003. The importance of nest cleaning in egg rejection behaviour of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arandinaceas. Journal of Avian Biology, 34(1): 16−19. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-048X.2003.02919.x
[29]	Mu HY, Liu NF, Yang M. 2008. Breeding of the black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros rufiventris in the Southeastern Qingzang (Qinghai-Tibetan) Plateau. Acta Zoologica Sinica, 54(2): 201−208. (in Chinese)
[30]	Päckert M, Martens J, Eck S, Nazarenko AA, Valchuk OP, Petri B, et al. 2005. The great tit (Parus major)-a misclassified ring species. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 86(2): 153−174. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00529.x
[31]	Peer BD, Rothstein SI, Delaney KS, Fleischer RC. 2007. Defence behaviour against brood parasitism is deeply rooted in mainland and island scrub-jays. Animal Behaviour, 73(1): 55−63. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.005
[32]	Rothstein SI. 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. The Condor, 77(3): 250−271. doi: 10.2307/1366221
[33]	Rothstein SI. 2001. Relic behaviours, coevolution and the retention versus loss of host defences after episodes of avian brood parasitism. Animal Behaviour, 61(1): 95−107. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1570
[34]	Rutila J, Latja R, Koskela K. 2002. The common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and its cavity nesting host, the redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus: a peculiar cuckoo-host system?. Journal of Avian Biology, 33(4): 414−419. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.02937.x
[35]	Samaš P, Rutila J, Grim T. 2016. The common redstart as a suitable model to study cuckoo-host coevolution in a unique ecological context. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 16(1): 255. doi: 10.1186/s12862-016-0835-5
[36]	Soler J, Soler M. 2000. Brood-parasite interactions between great spotted cuckoos and magpies: a model system for studying coevolutionary relationships. Oecologia, 125(3): 309−320. doi: 10.1007/s004420000487
[37]	Soler M. 2014. Long-term coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Biological Reviews, 89(3): 688−704. doi: 10.1111/brv.12075
[38]	Soler M, Fernández-Morante J, Espinosa F, Martín-Vivaldi M. 2012. Pecking but accepting the parasitic eggs may not reflect ejection failure: the role of motivation. Ethology, 118(7): 662−672. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02058.x
[39]	Soler M, Ruiz-Castellano C, del Carmen Fernández-Pinos M, Rösler A, Ontanilla J, Pérez-Contreras T. 2011. House sparrows selectively eject parasitic conspecific eggs and incur very low rejection costs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(10): 1997−2005. doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1209-z
[40]	Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M. 2010. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(19): 8672−8676. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910486107
[41]	Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M. 2011. How to evade a coevolving brood parasite: egg discrimination versus egg variability as host defences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1724): 3566−3573. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0401
[42]	Stokke BG, Hafstad I, Rudolfsen G, Bargain B, Beier J, Bigas Campàs D, et al. 2007. Host density predicts presence of cuckoo parasitism in reed warblers. Oikos, 116(6): 913−922. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15832.x
[43]	Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2005. The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithological Science, 4(1): 17−29. doi: 10.2326/osj.4.17
[44]	Thomson RL, Tolvanen J, Forsman JT. 2016. Cuckoo parasitism in a cavity nesting host: near absent egg‐rejection in a northern redstart population under heavy apparent (but low effective) brood parasitism. Journal of Avian Biology, 47(3): 363−370. doi: 10.1111/jav.00915
[45]	Tzeng HY, Wang W, Tseng YH, Chiu CA, Kuo CC, Tsai ST. 2018. Tree mortality in response to typhoon-induced floods and mudslides is determined by tree species, size, and position in a riparian Formosan gum forest in subtropical Taiwan. PLoS One, 13(1): e0190832. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190832
[46]	Underwood TJ, Sealy SG, McLaren CM. 2004. Experiments on egg discrimination in two North American corvids: further evidence for retention of egg ejection. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82(9): 1399−1407. doi: 10.1139/z04-118
[47]	van Balen JH, Booy CJH, van Franeker JA, Odieck ER. 1982. Studies on hole-nesting birds in natural nest-sites. I. Availability and occupation of natural nest-sites. Ardea, 70: 1−124.
[48]	Wang LW, Yang CC, Møller AP, Liang W, Lu X. 2015. Multiple mechanisms of egg recognition in a cuckoo host. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 69(11): 1761−1767. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-1988-8
[49]	Wesołowski T. 1989. Nest-sites of hole-nesters in a primaeval temperate forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Acta Ornithologica, 25(3): 321−351.
[50]	Xia CW, Liang W, Carey GJ, Zhang YY. 2016. Song characteristics of oriental cuckoo Cuculus optatus and Himalayan cuckoo Cuculus saturatus and implications for distribution and taxonomy. Zoological Studies, 55: 38.
[51]	Yang CC, Chen M, Wang LW, Liang W, Møller AP. 2015a. Nest sanitation elicits egg discrimination in cuckoo hosts. Animal Cognition, 18(6): 1373−1377. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0898-5
[52]	Yang CC, Li ZM, Zhang YY, Wang HT, Liang W, Møller AP. 2016. Egg polymorphism and egg discrimination in the Daurian redstart Phoenicurus auroreus, a host of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Ornithological Science, 15(2): 127−132. doi: 10.2326/osj.15.127
[53]	Yang CC, Liang W, Møller AP. 2019. Egg retrieval versus egg rejection in cuckoo hosts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374(1769): 20180200. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0200
[54]	Yang CC, Stokke BG, Antonov A, Cai Y, Shi SH, Moksnes A, et al. 2013. Host selection in parasitic birds: are open-cup nesting insectivorous passerines always suitable cuckoo hosts?. Journal of Avian Biology, 44(3): 216−220. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2013.00123.x
[55]	Yang CC, Wang LW, Cheng SJ, Hsu YC, Liang W, Møller AP. 2014. Nest defenses and egg recognition of yellow-bellied prinia against cuckoo parasitism. Naturwissenschaften, 101(9): 727−734. doi: 10.1007/s00114-014-1209-8
[56]	Yang CC, Wang LW, Cheng SJ, Hsu YC, Stokke BG, Røskaft E, et al. 2015c. Deiciency in egg rejection in a host species as a response to the absence of brood parasitism. Behavioral Ecology, 26(2): 406−415. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru202
[57]	Yang CC, Wang LW, Liang W, Møller AP. 2015b. Nest sanitation behavior in hirundines as a pre-adaptation to egg rejection to counter brood parasitism. Animal Cognition, 18(1): 355−360. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0806-4