• This record comes from PubMed

Does contrast between eggshell ground and spot coloration affect egg rejection?

. 2017 Aug ; 104 (7-8) : 54. [epub] 20170622

Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic

Document type Journal Article

Links

PubMed 28642972
DOI 10.1007/s00114-017-1476-2
PII: 10.1007/s00114-017-1476-2
Knihovny.cz E-resources

Obligate avian brood parasitic species impose the costs of incubating foreign eggs and raising young upon their unrelated hosts. The most common host defence is the rejection of parasitic eggs from the nest. Both egg colours and spot patterns influence egg rejection decisions in many host species, yet no studies have explicitly examined the role of variation in spot coloration. We studied the American robin Turdus migratorius, a blue-green unspotted egg-laying host of the brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater, a brood parasite that lays non-mimetic spotted eggs. We examined host responses to model eggs with variable spot coloration against a constant robin-mimetic ground colour to identify patterns of rejection associated with perceived contrast between spot and ground colours. By using avian visual modelling, we found that robins were more likely to reject eggs whose spots had greater chromatic (hue) but not achromatic (brightness) contrast. Therefore, egg rejection decision rules in the American robin may depend on the colour contrast between parasite eggshell spot and host ground coloration. Our study also suggests that egg recognition in relation to spot coloration, like ground colour recognition, is tuned to the natural variation of avian eggshell spot colours but not to unnatural spot colours.

See more in PubMed

Evolution. 2011 Jul;65(7):2004-13 PubMed

Nat Commun. 2013;4:2475 PubMed

Biol Lett. 2008 Oct 23;4(5):515-7 PubMed

Biol Lett. 2006 Jun 22;2(2):177-80 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107(19):8672-6 PubMed

J Evol Biol. 2010 Feb;23(2):293-301 PubMed

J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2005 Apr;191(4):381-92 PubMed

Naturwissenschaften. 2017 Apr;104(3-4):14 PubMed

J Exp Biol. 2015 Jan 15;218(Pt 2):184-93 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 22;279(1731):1068-76 PubMed

Evolution. 1986 Nov;40(6):1207-1214 PubMed

Biol Lett. 2015 May;11(5):20150087 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2010 May 7;277(1686):1387-93 PubMed

Anim Cogn. 2012 Sep;15(5):881-9 PubMed

PeerJ. 2015 May 26;3:e965 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 22;275(1649):2345-52 PubMed

Anim Cogn. 2007 Oct;10(4):377-86 PubMed

PLoS One. 2010 Aug 09;5(8):e12054 PubMed

J Comp Physiol A. 1998 Nov;183(5):621-33 PubMed

J Exp Biol. 2015 Apr 15;218(Pt 8):1126-36 PubMed

Comp Biochem Physiol B. 1976;55(1):117-23 PubMed

J Comp Physiol A. 2000 Apr;186(4):375-87 PubMed

J Exp Biol. 2010 Jun 1;213(11):1976-83 PubMed

PeerJ. 2016 Jul 06;4:e2189 PubMed

Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 Aug;81(3):383-406 PubMed

J Evol Biol. 2006 Sep;19(5):1585-94 PubMed

J Anim Ecol. 2011 May;80(3):508-18 PubMed

Sci Rep. 2015 Mar 12;5:9060 PubMed

PLoS Biol. 2008 Jan;6(1):e25 PubMed

Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011 Jan;65(1):47-55 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 7;278(1724):3566-73 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Feb 8;284(1848):null PubMed

J Exp Biol. 2004 Jun;207(Pt 14):2471-85 PubMed

Vis Neurosci. 2000 Jul-Aug;17(4):509-28 PubMed

Front Zool. 2014 Apr 28;11:34 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...