European Cuckoo Cuculus Canorus Research Articles

Reactions of wintering passerines to male calls of the European cuckoo Cuculus canorus

The reaction of birds to the nest parasite, the European cuckoo Cuculus canorus, has been the subject of extensive testing in various aspects. However, while the cuckoo is a long-distance migrant, some of its hosts are sedentary species. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether species, primarily hosts, react to the presence of the cuckoo also in the winter season. This behaviour may involve an attempt to drive the parasite away from locations that will subsequently become their breeding sites. During playback experiments conducted in the winter of 2021/2022 in Poland, we demonstrated that numerous bird species react to the male cuckoo calls in winter. These calls may be perceived as a source of danger, particularly by cuckoo hosts, who responded to this call more frequently than non-hosts and the control species (pigeon). Nonetheless, the birds’ reactions were not strong, as they did not approach the source of the call. However, our results are constrained by the limited number of cuckoo host species wintering in Poland. To better evaluate the intensity of bird responses to the male cuckoo’s call during the non-breeding season, further studies should be conducted in regions where a greater variety of species, especially those most susceptible to parasitism, overwinter.

Geographic distribution of suitable hosts explains the evolution of specialized gentes in the European cuckoo Cuculus canorus

BackgroundSeveral types of selective forces can act to promote parasite specialization. Parasites might specialize on some suitable hosts at the cost of decreasing effectiveness when exploiting other species of hosts, and specialization can be more easily selected for in hosts that the parasites will easily find. Thus demographic characteristics of suitable hosts such as population density and its spatial consistency could be key factors predicting probability of parasite specialization and speciation. Here, we explore this hypothesis by studying the relationship between occurence of specialized races of the European cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) (i.e. gentes) and mean and coefficient of variation in population density estimated for 12 different European regions.ResultsThe results were in accordance with the hypothesis because specialized cuckoo egg morphs were more common in suitable hosts with high population density and low variation in population density at the level of host species or genera.ConclusionWe have presented evidence suggesting that population density and homogeneity of geographic distribution of hosts explain, at least partly, the evolution of specialized egg-morphs of the European cuckoo. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that resource (i.e., host) predictability explains the evolution of host races and species of parasites.

Reproductive biology of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus: early insights, persistent errors and the acquisition of knowledge

The brood parasitic habits of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus have excited wonder, disbelief and speculation since the fourth century BC. Accurate knowledge of cuckoo biology, however, accumulated only slowly and mostly since 1700. The aim of this study is to review six main topics: (1) the placement of cuckoo eggs in host nests; (2) cuckoo ‘clutch’ size; (3) cuckoo egg characteristics, mimicry and rejection; (4) choice of hosts; (5) eviction of eggs and chicks; and (6) the reasons why cuckoos are brood parasites and are incapable of rearing their own young. Early errors in reporting cuckoo biology were often a consequence of poor or incomplete observations leading to erroneous interpretations. Many of the early observers were egg collectors who focussed almost exclusively on the egg-laying period, thus ignoring cuckoo chick biology. Major landmarks in cuckoo studies included the facts that: (1) cuckoo eggs often resembled those of their hosts (1760s) and that this mimicry was adaptive (1850s); (2) hosts sometimes evicted cuckoo eggs (1770s); (3) female cuckoos laid individually distinctive eggs and that specific cuckoo gentes may exist (1850s); and (4) although well recognised that cuckoo chicks were reared alone, prior to Jenner’s work in the 1780s female cuckoo parents were thought to either eat or evict the host eggs or young. Jenner’s results was more readily accepted in Britain than in Germany. Between 1700 and 1859, cuckoo brood parasitism was difficult to reconcile with the prevalent conceptual framework of physico-theology (later known as the argument from design). Thereafter, Darwin’s idea of natural selection provided a superior conceptual framework, which in conjunction with experimental testing of specific hypotheses has continued to advance our understanding of brood parasitism. Our knowledge of cuckoo biology is far from complete, however, and we predict that continuing research often incorporating new technologies will refine and extend our understanding of the cuckoo’s extraordinary biology.

Response of introduced European birds in New Zealand to experimental brood parasitism

The loss of anti‐parasite adaptations against the European cuckooCuculus canoruswas studied in three European passerine species, song thrushTurdus philomelos, blackbirdT. merula, and chaffinchFringilla coelebs, introduced to New Zealand in the 19th century. Chaffinches in New Zealand ejected non‐mimetic eggs at a rate similar to their source population in the United Kingdom, but both song thrushes and blackbirds in New Zealand rejected non‐mimetic eggs at a higher rate than the United Kingdom. It is not clear if this difference reflects variation among hosts in their response to brood parasitism or if it is an artefact of subtle differences in the types of non‐mimetic eggs tested. In contrast, all three introduced species showed little aggression to a taxidermic model of a European cuckoo presented at their nests. This differs from European populations of these species, where model cuckoos are typically attacked. Our results suggest that in the∼130 years since their release in New Zealand, introduced birds have lost recognition of the European cuckoo but not their ability to discriminate non‐mimetic eggs. The differential loss of anti‐parasite adaptations by introduced birds in New Zealand suggests that cyclical models of host/parasite co‐evolution may need to take into account the differing rates at which different host adaptations are lost and gained.

How is host egg mimicry maintained in the cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)?

To investigate the evolutionary mechanism (host specificity vs. random searching) maintaining mimicry between cuckoo egg appearance and that of different European cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts, we studied the level of mimicry between the appearance of C. canorus eggs and that of their hosts’ eggs in different habitats in southern Finland by using ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. In the main habitat used by C. canorus for reproduction, eggs laid in nests of different host species differed in appearance. Host use by C. canorus was not related to the abundance of hosts, and the level of mimicry was not related to host abundance in the habitat. Furthermore, a close match between C. canorus egg appearance and that of host eggs within habitats was detected after removing the potentially confounding effect of host abundance. In the only two suitable host species nesting in trees (namely chaffinch Fringilla coelebs and brambling Fringilla montifringilla) we detected changes in C. canorus egg appearance that paralleled those of the two host species. Thus our findings suggest the existence of a correlation between the appearance of C. canorus eggs and that of their hosts’ eggs within different habitat types, and suggest that mimicry is maintained by strict host preferences by each C. canorus female when laying. © 2004 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 82, 57–68.

A comparative study of host selection in the European cuckoo Cuculus canorus.

Certain kinds of hosts are commonly regarded as being more suitable than other for rearing European cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) - insectivores that lay small eggs and have open, shallow nests - although empirical tests of cuckoo host selection are lacking. We analysed host use by the European cuckoo in 72 British passerines that are potential hosts and for which there was information available on life-history variables and variables related to cuckoo-host coevolution, such as rate of parasitism, rejection rate of non-mimetic model eggs and degree of cuckoo-egg mimicry of host eggs. The relative population size of the host species affected parasitism rate most strongly, followed by relatively short duration of the nestling period, and the kind of nest, with cuckoos selecting open-nesting hosts. However, the effect of the nestling period could be related to host body size and the kind of nest used, because hole-nesting species normally have longer nestling periods than open-nesters. We re-analysed the data excluding hole nesters and corvid species (species with larger body mass), but the results remained identical. The European cuckoo may benefit from selecting hosts with short nestling periods because such hosts provide food for their nestlings at a very high rate. When only those species known as cuckoo hosts were analysed, the variable that best accounted for the parasitism rate was duration of the breeding season. Therefore, availability of potential hosts in both time and space is important for cuckoos in selecting hosts.

Nestling cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, exploit hosts with begging calls that mimic a brood

Nestling cuckoos, Cuculus canorus , eject host eggs or young from the nest and are then raised alone by the hosts. Using reed warblers, Acrocephalus scirpaceus , as hosts, we investigated how the single cuckoo chick can command the same provisioning rate as a whole brood of host young. Large size alone is not sufficient to stimulate adequate provisioning because single blackbird, Turdus merula , or song thrush, T. philomelos , chicks of the same mass as a cuckoo were fed at a lower rate. Our experiments show that the key stimulus is the cuckoo chick9s rapid begging call (‘si, si, si, si ...’), which sounds remarkably like a whole brood of host chicks, and which it matched in calling rate. When single blackbird or song thrush chicks were accompanied by loudspeakers that broadcast either cuckoo begging calls or calls of a brood of reed warblers, the hosts increased their provisioning rate to that for a cuckoo chick. We suggest that the cuckoo needs vocal trickery to stimulate adequate care to compensate for the fact that it presents a visual stimulus of just one gape.

Cuckoo Host Interactions in Norwegian Mountain Areas

The host interactions of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus were studied in highland regions of Central Norway. Over a 12-year period, 17 potential host species were investigated for evidence of nest parasitism by the Cuckoo. Only three species were actually parasitized (Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis, Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, and Lapland Bunting Calcarius lapponicus). These species have similar eggs and also had similar parasitism rates, viz. about 6% in the higher lying areas, and 25% (only Meadow Pipits) in the lower areas. This indicates that individual female Cuckoos have the opportunity to use several species as hosts, depending on the colour and shape of the host's eggs. Breeding success for the Cuckoo was 56%. Deserted host nests contained significantly more eggs than undeserted nests, a fact which may indicate that one mechanism for the host to detect parasitism is to assess the number of eggs. It is therefore important for the Cuckoo to remove at least one of the host eggs when laying its own, This study shows that a mean of 1.5 eggs were probably removed per parasitized host nest.

Observation and Experiment in the Analysis of Interactions between Brood Parasites and Their Hosts

Previous articleNext article No AccessLetters to the EditorObservation and Experiment in the Analysis of Interactions between Brood Parasites and Their HostsStephen I. RothsteinStephen I. Rothstein Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 105, Number 941Jan. - Feb., 1971 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/282702 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 15Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1971 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Juan J. Soler, David Martín-Gálvez, Liesbeth de Neve, Manuel Soler Brood parasitism correlates with the strength of spatial autocorrelation of life history and defensive traits in Magpies, Ecology 94, no.66 (Jun 2013): 1338–1346.https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1350.1Karl Schulze-Hagen, Bard G. Stokke, Tim R. Birkhead Reproductive biology of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus: early insights, persistent errors and the acquisition of knowledge, Journal of Ornithology 150, no.11 (Oct 2008): 1–16.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-008-0340-8David Martín-Gálvez, Juan J. Soler, Juan Gabriel Martínez, Andrew P. Krupa, Manuel Soler, Terry Burke CUCKOO PARASITISM AND PRODUCTIVITY IN DIFFERENT MAGPIE SUBPOPULATIONS PREDICT FREQUENCIES OF THE 457bp ALLELE: A MOSAIC OF COEVOLUTION AT A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC SCALE, Evolution 61, no.1010 (Oct 2007): 2340–2348.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00194.xTOMÁŠ GRIM Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not?, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 84, no.11 (Dec 2004): 69–78.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00414.xTina L. Fleischer, Glen E. Woolfenden Florida Scrub-Jays eject foreign eggs added to their nests, Journal of Field Ornithology 75, no.11 (Jan 2004): 49–50.https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-75.1.49ALEXANDER CRUZ, TIMOTHY D. MANOLIS, ROBERT W. ANDREWS Reproductive interactions of the Shiny Cowbird Molothrus bonariensis and the Yellow-hooded Blackbird Agelaius icterocephalus in Trinidad, Ibis 132, no.33 (Apr 2008): 436–444.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1990.tb01061.xAlexander Cruz, James W. Wiley THE DECLINE OF AN ADAPTATION IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRESUMED SELECTION PRESSURE, Evolution 43, no.11 (May 2017): 55–62.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb04206.xPaul Mason, Stephen I. Rothstein COEVOLUTION AND AVIAN BROOD PARASITISM: COWBIRD EGGS SHOW EVOLUTIONARY RESPONSE TO HOST DISCRIMINATION, Evolution 40, no.66 (May 2017): 1207–1214.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05745.xStephen I. Rothstein, David A. Yokel, Robert C. Fleischer Social Dominance, Mating and Spacing Systems, Female Fecundity, and Vocal Dialects in Captive and Free-Ranging Brown-Headed Cowbirds, (Jan 1986): 127–185.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6784-4_3Olin Sewall Pettingill Eggs, Egg-laying, and Incubation, (Jan 1985): 295–312.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-552455-1.50021-6Alexander Cruz, Timothy Manolis, James W. Wiley The Shiny Cowbird: A Brood Parasite Expanding Its Range in the Caribbean Region, Ornithological Monographs , no.3636 (Jan 1985): 607–620.https://doi.org/10.2307/40168308Paul V. Loiselle Filial cannibalism and egg recognition by males of the primitively custodial teleost Cyprinodon macularius californiensis girard (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontidae), Ethology and Sociobiology 4, no.11 (Jan 1983): 1–9.https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(83)90002-XLuis Arias-de-Reyna, Sebastian J. Hidalgo An investigation into egg-acceptance by azure-winged magpies and host-recognition by great spotted cuckoo chicks, Animal Behaviour 30, no.33 (Aug 1982): 819–823.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80155-3Stephen I. Rothstein Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: Do birds know their own eggs?, Animal Behaviour 23 (May 1975): 268–278.https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(75)90075-5 Stephen I. Rothstein Evolutionary Rates and Host Defenses Against Avian Brood Parasitism, The American Naturalist 109, no.966966 (Oct 2015): 161–176.https://doi.org/10.1086/282984