Host genotype and age have no effect on rejection of parasitic eggs
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- genotyp MeSH
- hnízdění * MeSH
- interakce hostitele a parazita genetika MeSH
- mikrosatelitní repetice genetika MeSH
- ptáci genetika parazitologie MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- zygota fyziologie MeSH
- Check Tag
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
Egg rejection belongs to a widely used host tactic to prevent the costs incurred by avian brood parasitism. However, the genetic basis of this behaviour and the effect of host age on the probability of rejecting the parasitic egg remain largely unknown. Here, we used a set of 15 polymorphic microsatellite loci, including a previously detected candidate locus (Ase64), to link genotypes of female great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), a known rejecter, with their egg rejection responses in two host populations. We also tested whether host female age, as a measure of the experience with own eggs, plays a role in rejection of common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs. We failed to find any consistent association of egg rejection responses with host female genotypes or age. It seems that host decisions on egg rejection show high levels of phenotypic plasticity and are likely to depend on the spatiotemporal variation in the parasitism pressure. Future studies exploring the repeatability of host responses towards parasitic eggs and the role of host individual experience with parasitic eggs would greatly improve our understanding of the variations in host behaviours considering the persistence of brood parasitism in host populations with rejecter phenotypes.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Anim Behav. 2000 Apr;59(4):877-883 PubMed
Anim Cogn. 2007 Oct;10(4):377-86 PubMed
J Exp Biol. 2010 Jun 1;213(11):1976-83 PubMed
Mol Ecol. 2006 Apr;15(5):1299-320 PubMed
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Feb;20(2):96-104 PubMed
Evolution. 2007 Oct;61(10):2340-8 PubMed
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Nov 20;281(1774):20132665 PubMed
J Evol Biol. 2010 Feb;23(2):293-301 PubMed
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Oct 29;362(1486):1873-86 PubMed
Curr Biol. 2009 Feb 10;19(3):235-40 PubMed
Bull Math Biol. 2002 Nov;64(6):1045-68 PubMed
Trends Neurosci. 2001 Oct;24(10):609-16 PubMed
Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Feb;5(2):89-100 PubMed
Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Jul;65(1):220-8 PubMed
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Jul;24(7):1537-52 PubMed
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Nov 7;272(1578):2289-98 PubMed
Evolution. 1998 Jun;52(3):877-883 PubMed
Evolution. 2007 Sep;61(9):2212-28 PubMed
Evolution. 1999 Jun;53(3):947-956 PubMed
Mol Ecol. 2000 Oct;9(10):1529-38 PubMed
Evolution. 1999 Feb;53(1):269-278 PubMed
Behav Processes. 2009 May;81(1):34-8 PubMed
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 22;275(1649):2345-52 PubMed
Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jan;8(1):103-6 PubMed
Mol Ecol. 2000 Dec;9(12):2226-31 PubMed
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Sep;52(3):866-78 PubMed
Biol Lett. 2006 Jun 22;2(2):177-80 PubMed
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Dec 12;280(1752):20122518 PubMed
J Evol Biol. 2006 Mar;19(2):543-50 PubMed
Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jul;67(1):170-81 PubMed