Evolution and Maintenance of Egg Rejection by Hosts as Adaptation Against Conspecific Brood Parasites: An Individual-Based Model

  • Fugo TakasuEmail author
Part of the Fascinating Life Sciences book series (FLS)


An individual-based simulation model is constructed to explore evolutionary dynamics of the three adaptive traits: (1) proportion of eggs allocated as conspecific parasitism, (2) rejection ability to reject unlike eggs in own nest, and (3) egg appearance. Simulation analysis suggests that egg rejection can logically evolve due to conspecific brood parasitism and that variability of egg appearance plays a key role to determine the evolutionary trajectory of the three adaptive traits. If variability of egg appearance is small enough, conspecific parasitism selects for lower inter-clutch variation, and all individuals have nearly identical eggs. The population converges to a state where ability to recognize and reject unlike eggs is neutral to selection, and a small cost ignored in this model will suffice to prevent the evolution of egg rejection. However, if egg variability is large enough, conspecific parasitism selects for rejection ability to increase but this in turn selects against conspecific parasitism. The population converges to a state where all individuals show rejection ability at a high level but invest fewer eggs to conspecific parasitism. I highlight the importance of variability of egg appearance for the evolution and the maintenance of egg rejection ability in conspecific brood parasites and call for quantitative measures of the variability of egg appearance in bird species that practice conspecific brood parasitism.



I thank Manolo Soler for giving me a chance to write a chapter for this book. I also thank N. Baran, T. Grim, and M. Soler for constructive comments and suggestions to improve the chapter content.


  1. Britton NF, Planque R, Franks NR (2007) Evolution of defence portfolios in exploiter-victim systems. Bull Math Biol 69:957–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooke MD, Davies NB (1988) Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature 335:630–632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooker LC, Brooker MG, Brooker AMG (1990) An alternative population/genetic model for the evolution of egg mimesis and egg crypsis in cuckoos. J Theor Biol 146:123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broom M, Ruxton GD (2002) A game theoretical approach to conspecific brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 13:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broom M, Ruxton GD (2004) A framework for modelling and analysing conspecific brood parasitism. J Math Biol 48:529–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collias EC (1993) Inheritance of egg-color polymorphism in the village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus). Auk 110:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies NB, Brooke ML (1988) Cuckoos versus reed warblers. Adaptations and counter-adaptations. Anim Behav 36:262–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies NB, Brooke ML (1989) An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. II. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol 58:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB, Brooke ML, Kacelnik A (1996) Recognition errors and probability of parasitism deter- mine whether reed warblers should accept or reject mimetic cuckoo eggs. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fossøy F, Sorenson MD, Liang W, Ekrem T, Moksnes A, Møller AP, Rutila J, Røskaft E, Takasu F, Yang C, Stokke BG (2016) Ancient origin and maternal inheritance of blue cuckoo eggs. Nat Commun 7:10272. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke ML, Davies NB, Nakamura H (2000) Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the common cuckoo. Nature 407:183–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gosler AG, Barnett PR, Reynolds SJ (2000) Inheritance and variation in eggshell patterning in the great tit Parus major. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2469–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 284:20162592. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG (2001) How are different common cuckoo Cuculus canorus egg morphs maintained? An evaluation of different hypotheses. Ardea 89:341–352Google Scholar
  16. Jaatinen K, Lehtonen J, Kokko H (2011) Strategy selection under conspecific brood parasitism: an integrative modeling approach. Behav Ecol 22:144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly C (1987) A model to explore the rate of spread of mimicry and rejection in hypothetical populations of cuckoos and their hosts. J Theor Biol 125:283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lack D (1947) The significance of clutch size. Ibis 89:309–352Google Scholar
  19. Lahti DV (2005) Evolution of bird eggs in the absence of cuckoo parasitism. PNAS 102:18057–18062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A (1992) Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol 3:128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyon BE (1998) Optimal clutch size and conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 392:380–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyon BE, Eadie JM (2008) Conspecific brood parasitism in birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:343–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manna T, Copper C, Baylis S, Shawkey MD, Waterhouse GIN, Grim T, Hauber ME (2017) Does the house sparrow Passer domesticus represent a global model species for egg rejection behavior? J Avian Biol 48:346–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marchetti K (1992) Costs to host defence and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. Proc R Soc Lond B 248:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1995) Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool 236:625–648. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 116:64–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Payne RB (1977) The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothstein SI (1975) Evolutionary rates and host defenses against avian brood parasitism. Am Nat 109:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothstein SI (1982) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? Behav Ecol Sosiobiol 11:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rothstein SI (1990) A model system for co-evolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Roncali G, Abaurrea T, Ibanes-Alamo JD (2016) Egg rejection in blackbirds Turdus merula: a by-product of conspecific parasitism or successful resistance against interspecific brood parasites? Front Zool 13:16. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruxton GD, Broom M (2002) Intraspecific brood parasitism can increase the number of eggs that an individual lays in its own nest. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1989–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samas P, Hauber ME, Cassey P, Grim T (2014) Host responses to interspecific brood parasitism: a by-product of adaptations to conspecific parasitism? Front Zool 11:34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Soler M (2014) No evidence of conspecific brood parasitism provoking egg rejection in thrushes. Front Zool 11:68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soler M, Ruiz-Castellano C, Fernandez-Pinos MC, Rösler A, Ontanilla J, Perez-Contreras T (2011) House sparrows selectively eject parasitism conspecific eggs and incur very low rejection costs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1998–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2010) Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. PNAS 107:8672–8676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2012) Host-parasite arms races and rapid changes in bird egg appearance. Am Nat 179:633–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoddard MC, Stevens M (2010) Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird’s eye. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1387–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stoddard MC, Stevens M (2011) Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution 65:2004–2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stokke BG, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2007) The importance of clutch characteristics and learning for antiparasite adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Evolution 61:2212–2228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokke BG, Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Møller AP, Antonov A, Fossøy F, Liang W, López-Iborra G, Moskát C, Shykoff J, Soler M, Vikan JR, Yang C, Takasu F (2016) Disappearance of eggs from nonparasitized nests of brood parasite hosts: the evolutionary equilibrium hypothesis revisited. Biol J Linn Soc 118:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Takasu F (1998) Why do all host species not show defense against avian brood parasitism: evolutionary lag or equilibrium? Am Nat 151:193–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Takasu F (2003) Co-evolutionary dynamics of egg appearance in avian brood parasitism. Evol Ecol Res 5:345–362Google Scholar
  44. Takasu F (2004) How many eggs should be laid in one’s own nest and others’ in intraspecific brood parasitism? Popul Ecol 46:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Takasu F, Kawasaki K, Nakamura H, Cohen JE, Shigesada N (1993) Modeling the population dynamics of a cuckoo-host association and the evolution of host defenses. Am Nat 142:819–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Valpine P, Eadie JM (2008) Conspecific brood parasitism and population dynamics. Am Nat 172:547–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Yamauchi A (1993) Theory of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Anim Behav 46:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yamauchi A (1995) Theory of evolution of nest parasitism in birds. Am Nat 145:434–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang C, Liang W, Cai Y, Shi S, Takasu F, Møller AP, Antonov A, Fossøy F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG (2010) Coevolution in action: disruptive selection on egg colour in an avian brood parasite and its host. PLoS One 5:e10816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Yom-Tov Y (1980) Intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Biol Rev 55:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yom-Tov Y (2001) An updated list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer ScienceNara Women’s UniversityNaraJapan

Personalised recommendations