When are egg-rejection cues perceived? A test using thermochromic eggs in an avian brood parasite host

  • Mark E. HauberEmail author
  • Miri Dainson
  • Alec Luro
  • Amber A. Louder
  • Daniel Hanley
Original Paper


At the core of recognition systems research are questions regarding how and when fitness-relevant decisions made. Studying egg-rejection behavior by hosts to reduce the costs of avian brood parasitism has become a productive model to assess cognitive algorithms underlying fitness-relevant decisions. Most of these studies focus on how cues and contexts affect hosts’ behavioral responses to foreign eggs; however, the timing of when the cues are perceived for egg-rejection decisions is less understood. Here, we focused the responses of American robins Turdus migratorius to model eggs painted with a thermochromic paint. This technique modified an egg’s color with predictably varying temperatures across incubation: at the onset of incubation, the thermochromic model egg was cold and perceptually similar to a static blue model egg (mimicking the robin’s own blue–green egg color), but by the end of an incubation bout, it was warm and similar to a static beige egg (mimicking the ground color of the egg of the robin’s brood parasite, the brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater). Thermochromic eggs were rejected at statistically intermediate rates between those of the static blue (mostly accepted) and static beige (mostly rejected) model eggs. This implies that at the population level, egg-rejection relevant cues are not perceived solely when arriving to or solely when departing from the nest. We also found that robins rejected their own eggs more often when exposed to color-changing model eggs relative to static eggs, suggesting that recognizing variable foreign eggs entails costly rejection errors for this host species.


Brood parasitism Egg rejection Molothrus ater Recognition systems 



MEH, DH, and MD designed the study, DH and MD prepared the materials, MD and MEH collected field data, MD and AAL transcribed video observations, AL performed reflectance measurements and visual modelling, MEH conducted the statistical analyses, MEH wrote the first draft, and all authors contributed to the submitted versions of the manuscript. We thank the many landowners in Urbana who allowed us to work on their properties. The editor and the referees of the journal greatly improved on earlier versions of the manuscript.


Support for this project was provided by the Harley Jones Van Cleave Professorship at the University of Illinois (to MEH).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

All authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Ethical approval

We followed the guidelines of the Animal Behavior Society for ethical treatment of research animals. The research was approved by the University of Illinois (IACUC #17049), the USA Department of the Interior (#23681), and the Illinois State Department of Natural Resources (#NH17.6099) issued to MEH.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1306_MOESM1_ESM.xls (418 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 417 kb) (4.9 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (MOV 4975 kb)


  1. Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Roskaft E (2008) Getting rid of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg: why do hosts delay rejection? Behav Ecol 19:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ban M, Moskat C, Barta Z, Hauber ME (2013) Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for foreign egg rejection by a cuckoo host. Behav Ecol 24:1014–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista G, Johnson JL, Dominguez E, Costa-Mattioli M, Pena JL (2016) Translational control of auditory imprinting and structural plasticity by eIF2α. eLife 5:e17197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell DLM, Hauber ME (2010) Conspecific-only experience during development reduces the strength of heterospecific song discrimination in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata): a behavioural test of the optimal acceptance threshold hypothesis. J Ornithol 151:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caves EM, Green PA, Zipple MN, Peters S, Johnsen S, Nowicki S (2018) Categorical perception of colour signals in a songbird. Nature 560:365–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Croston R, Hauber ME (2014) Spectral tuning and perceptual differences do not explain the rejection of brood parasitic eggs by American robins (Turdus migratorius). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croston R, Hauber ME (2015) Experimental shifts in intraclutch egg color variation do not affect egg rejection in a host of a non-egg-mimetic avian brood parasite. PLoS One 10:e0121213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dainson M, Hauber ME, Lopez AV, Grim T, Hanley D (2017) Does contrast between eggshell ground and spot coloration affect egg rejection? Sci Nat 104:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies NB, de Brooke ML (1989) An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its host. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol 58:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB, de Brooke ML, Kacelnik A (1996) Recognition errors and probability of parasitism determine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grim T, Samas P, Moskat C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, Roskaft E, Stokke BG (2011) Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol 80:508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanley D, Sulc M, Brennan P, Hauber ME, Grim T, Honza M (2016) Dynamic egg colour mimicry. Ecol Evol 6:4192–4202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanley D, Grim T, Igic B, Samas P, Lopez AV, Shawkey MD, Hauber ME (2017) Egg discrimination along a gradient of natural variation in eggshell coloration. Proc R Soc Lond B 284:20162592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanley D, Lopez AV, Fiorini VD, Reboreda JC, Grim T, Hauber ME (2019) Variation in multicomponent recognition cues alters egg rejection decisions: a test of the optimal acceptance threshold hypothesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 374:20180195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hauber ME (2003) Egg-capping is a cost paid by hosts of interspecific brood parasites. Auk 120:860–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauber ME, Moskat C, Ban M (2006) Experimental shift in hosts’ acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs. Biol Lett 2:177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauber ME, Tong L, Ban M, Croston R, Grim T, Waterhouse GIN, Shawkey MD, Barron AB, Moskat C (2015) The value of artificial stimuli in behavioral research: making the case for egg rejection studies in avian brood parasitism. Ethology 121:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honza M, Prochazka P, Morongova K, Capek M, Jelinek V (2011) Do nest light conditions affect rejection of parasitic eggs? A test of the light environment hypothesis. Ethology 117:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Igic B, Nunez V, Voss HU, Croston R, Aidala Z, Lopez AV, Van Tatenhove A, Holford ME, Shawkey MD, Hauber ME (2015) Using 3D printed eggs to examine the egg-rejection behaviour of wild birds. PeerJ 3:e965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lahti DC (2015) The limits of artificial stimuli in behavioral research: the umwelt gamble. Ethology 121:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lang AK, Bollinger EK, Peer BD (2014) Effect of parasite-to-host egg ratio on egg rejection by a brown-headed cowbird host. Auk 131:694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzana JC, Sealy SG (2001) Fitness costs and benefits of cowbird egg ejection by gray catbirds. Behav Ecol 12:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luro AB, Hauber ME (2017) A test of the nest sanitation hypothesis for the evolution of foreign egg rejection in an avian brood parasite rejecter host species. Sci Nat 104:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luro A, Igic B, Croston R, Lopez AV, Shawkey MD, Hauber ME (2018) Which egg features predict egg rejection responses in American robins? Replicating Rothstein’s (1982) study. Ecol Evol 8:1673–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyon BE, Eadie JM (2017) Why do birds lay eggs in conspecifics’ nests? In: Soler M (ed) Avian brood parasitism. Springer Nature, Heidelberg, pp 105–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manna T, Moskat C, Hauber ME (2017) Ch. 24: Cognitive decision rules for egg rejection. In: Soler M (ed) Avian brood parasitism. Springer Nature, New York, pp 438–448Google Scholar
  27. Mayani-Paras F, Kilner RM, Stoddard MC, Rodriguez C, Drummond H (2015) Behaviorally induced camouflage: a new mechanism of avian egg protection. Am Nat 186:E91–E97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendelson TC, Fitzpatrick CL, Hauber ME, Pence CH, Rodgriguez RL, Safran RJ, Stern CA, Stevens JR (2016) Cognitive phenotypes and the evolution of animal decisions. Trends Ecol Evol 11:850–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreno J, Lobato E, Morales J (2011) Eggshell blue-green colouration fades immediately after oviposition: a cautionary note about measuring natural egg colours. Ornis Fenn 88:51–56Google Scholar
  30. Pozgayova M, Prochazka P, Polacikova L, Honza M (2011) Closer clutch inspection—quicker egg ejection: timing of host responses toward parasitic eggs. Behav Ecol 22:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am Nat 133:407–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roncalli G, Soler M, Ruiz-Raya F, Serrano-Martin AJ, Ibanez-Alamo JD (2019) Predation risk affects egg-ejection but not recognition in blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothstein SI (1975a) An experimental and teleonomic investiga- tion of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77:250–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothstein SI (1975b) Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: do birds know their own eggs? Anim Behav 23:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothstein SI (1982) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scharf HM, Stenstrom K, Dainson M, Benson TJ, Fernandez-Juricic E, Hauber ME (2019) Mimicry-dependent lateralization in the visual inspection of foreign eggs by American robins. Biol Lett 15:20190351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simons MJP, Verhulst S (2011) Zebra finch females prefer males with redder bills independent of song rate—a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 22:755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soler M, Ruiz-Raya F, Roncalli G, Ibanez-Alamo JD (2017) Relationships between egg-recognition and egg-ejection in a grasp-ejector species. PLoS One 12:e0166283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens M, Troscianko J, Spottiswoode CN (2013) Repeated targeting of the same hosts by a brood parasite compromises host egg rejection. Nat Commun 4:2475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stokke B, Honza M, Moksnes A, Roskaft E, Rudolfsen G (2002) Costs associated with recognition and rejection of parasitic eggs in two European passerines. Behaviour 139:629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vanderhoff N, Pyle P, Patten MA, Sallabanks R, James FC (2016) America Robin. In: Rodewald PG (ed) The birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  42. Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, School of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesLong Island University-PostBrookvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations