Arne MOKSNES, Frode FOSSØY, Eivin RØSKAFT, Bård G. STOKKE. 2013: Reviewing 30 years of studies on the Common Cuckoo: accumulated knowledge and future perspectives. Avian Research, 4(1): 3-14. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0001
Citation: Arne MOKSNES, Frode FOSSØY, Eivin RØSKAFT, Bård G. STOKKE. 2013: Reviewing 30 years of studies on the Common Cuckoo: accumulated knowledge and future perspectives. Avian Research, 4(1): 3-14. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0001

Reviewing 30 years of studies on the Common Cuckoo: accumulated knowledge and future perspectives

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Arne Moksnes, E-mail: arne.moksnes@bio.ntnu.no

  • Received Date: 09 Dec 2012
  • Accepted Date: 18 Dec 2012
  • Available Online: 23 Apr 2023
  • In Europe, eggs of the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) have been found in more than 125 different host species. However, very few species are frequently parasitized. The Cuckoo is divided into several distinct races termed gentes. Females of each gens specialize in parasitizing a particular host species. More than 20 such gentes are recognized in Europe. Each female Cuckoo lays eggs of constant appearance. Most gentes can be separated based on their distinct egg types, which in many cases mimic those of their hosts. Different gentes may occur in sympatry or may be separated geographically. Some gentes may occur in restricted parts of the host's distribution area. These patterns raise some fundamental questions like: Why are some passerine species preferred as hosts while others are not? Why does a host population consist of individuals either accepting or rejecting Cuckoo eggs? Why is there marked variation in egg rejection behavior between various host populations? How distinct and host-specialized are Cuckoo gentes? These questions are discussed in relation to existing knowledge and future perspectives.

  • In avian brood parasitism, interaction between a parasite and its host could lead to a co-evolutionary process called arms race, in which evolutionary progress on one side provokes a further response on the other side (Rothstein and Robinson, 1998). The Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) parasitizes more than 100 species of hosts and has evolved more than 20 different kinds of egg phenotypes (Payne, 2005). These usually lay mimetic eggs, which often evolve in improved mimicry under selection pressure of host rejections (Davies, 2000; Yang et al., 2010a). There are up to 17 species of cuckoo species in China (Zheng, 2011; Yang et al., 2012a). Many breed in sympatry, such as the Common Cuckoo, the Himalayan Cuckoo (Cuculus saturatus), the Oriental Cuckoo (C. optatus), the Indian Cuckoo (C. micropterus) and the Lesser Cuckoo (C. poliocephalus) (Yang et al., 2012a). In contrast, only one Cuculus species occurs in Europe. Therefore, there is a potential risk of mis-identification of cuckoo nestlings, especially for the Cuculus species, in a multiple-cuckoo system. Even within a fine-scale study area, several cuckoo species co-occur belonging to the same Cuculus genus. This situation also poses a potential risk in that one host could be utilized by more than one parasite species, or one host parasitized by the same cuckoo species but with polymorphic eggs (Yang et al., 2010a). In this study we demonstrate a practical criterion to identify cuckoo nestlings (Cuculus spp.) in the field. Distinct morphological characteristics of cuckoo nestlings are summarized from our long-term studies and we established a molecular phylogenetic tree of Cuculus species to confirm our empirical results.

    This study was conducted in the Kuankuoshui Nature Reserve, Guizhou Province in south-western China (28°10′N, 107°10′E) during the period from April to July 2004–2011. The study site is situated in a subtropical moist broadleaf and mixed forest, interspersed with abandoned tea plantations, shrub areas and open fields used as cattle pastures. Four Cuculus species, the Common Cuckoo, the Himalayan Cuckoo, the Lesser Cuckoo and the Indian Cuckoo co-occur in our study site (Yang et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). The first three species breed in a sympatric highland area while the Indian Cuckoo breeds in the lowlands.

    Nests of all potential cuckoo hosts were found by systematically searching all typical and potential nest sites and by monitoring the activities of host adults throughout the breeding season. Date of the first eggs laid, egg color, clutch size and occurrence of cuckoo parasitism were recorded and distinct characteristics of different cuckoo nestlings were summarized. Blood samples from cuckoo nestlings were collected late in the brooding period and used for DNA extraction; polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) and sequencing were conducted in the State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol of Sun Yat-sen University. DNA segments from cytochrome b (referred to as cyt b) genes were amplified by using the primer sequences presented in Table 1. Molecular phylogenetic trees were established in MEGA 4.1 by using Neighbor-Joining methods. Another sympatric cuckoo species, the Large Hawk-cuckoo (Hierococcyx sparverioides), whose nestlings are easy to identify (Yang et al., 2012b), was treated as an outgroup for phylogenetic tree construction.

    Table  1.  Primer sequences and sources of cytochrome b used in this study
    Name Sequence Source
    L 14841 5′-CCATCCAACATCTCAGCCATGATGAAA-3′ Kocher et al. 1989
    H 15149 5′-TGCAGCCCCTCAGAATGATATTTGTCCTCA-3′ Kocher et al. 1989
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    According to our observations and summary of morphological traits, two important and distinct characteristics of cuckoo nestlings can be accepted for reliable species identification. First, the gape color pattern is an apparent characteristic for identification of early stage nestlings, whose skins are naked without plumage. In the Himalayan Cuckoo nestlings (n = 3), two triangular patches on the palate adjoin the cutting edges of the upper mandible; these appeared when the nestlings were four days old and became darker with age and growth (Fig. 1). These black patches on the gapes are absent in other Cuculus nestlings, except for the Oriental Cuckoo, formerly regarded as the same species as the Himalayan Cuckoo (Payne, 2005). Secondly, the plumage color and pattern were treated as important characteristics for identification of cuckoo nestlings at a later stage. Common Cuckoo nestlings (n = 8) have white, narrow tips of feathers on their upper backs and wings, which are obscure in the Himalayan Cuckoo and were absent in nestlings of the Lesser Cuckoo (n = 3) (Fig. 2). The Indian Cuckoo nestlings (n = 4) had wide, large scaled white feather edges, covering their entire head and most of their upper back and wings (Fig. 2). Furthermore, white nape spots only appeared in Common Cuckoo nestlings.

    Figure  1.  Photographs of six days old cuckoo nestlings with open gapes. LC refers to the Lesser Cuckoo, HC to the Himalayan Cuckoo and CC to the Common Cuckoo.
    Figure  2.  Photographs of near fledged cuckoo nestlings with growing plumage. LC refers to the Lesser Cuckoo, HC to the Himalayan Cuckoo, CC to the Common Cuckoo and IC to the Indian Cuckoo.

    The molecular phylogenetic tree supported our morphological classification of cuckoo nestlings (Fig. 3). Three hosts were found to be used by the Common Cuckoo, i.e., the Daurian Redstart (Phoenicurus auroreus), the White Wagtail (Motacilla alba) and the Ashy-throated Parrotbill (Paradoxomis alphonsianus). As well, the Himalayan Cuckoo, the Indian Cuckoo and the Lesser Cuckoo parasitized Blyth's Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus reguloides), the Black Drongo (Dicrurus macrocercus) and the Brownish-flanked Bush Warbler (Cettia fortipes), respectively.

    Figure  3.  Molecular phylogenetic tree of cytochrome b in Cuculus species by using Neighbor-Joining method. Latin names in brackets refer to the host species, except for the Cuculus optatus, whose sequence was obtained from the NCBI without knowing its host.

    In the present study, we demonstrated a practical criterion to identify cuckoo nestlings (Cuculus spp.) in the field. Distinct morphological characteristics of cuckoo nestlings were further confirmed by the molecular phylogenetic tree of these Cuculus species. The cuckoo-host system is among the most studied brood parasite systems, but it should be pointed out that the cuckoos of Asia are much less well known, with the exception of the Japanese cuckoos (Rothstein and Robinson, 1998; Payne, 2005). China has the largest and most abundant occurrence of cuckoo species in Asia, with many of them co-occur in sympatric areas (Yang et al., 2012a). Studies of such multiple-cuckoo systems are needed to reveal host use and competition among sympatric cuckoo species, which can help us to improve our understanding of co-evolutionary processes. However, species identification of cuckoo nestlings is quite difficult in China, especially that of Cuculus species. Even within a fine-scale study area, several cuckoo species co-occur, belonging to the same Cuculus genus. This situation also poses a potential risk that one host could be utilized by more than one parasite species, or one host parasitized by the same cuckoo species but with polymorphic eggs (Yang et al., 2010a). We have provided therefore both a reliable criterion for recognizing morphological traits and a molecular analysis to distinguish different cuckoo nestling species in the field. To our knowledge, this is the first report of species identification of Cuculus nestlings through molecular analysis.

    We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31071938, 31101646), the Key Project of the Chinese Ministry of Education (No. 212136) and by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-10-0111). We would like to thank the Forestry Department of Guizhou Province and the Kuankuoshui National Nature Reserve for support and permission to carry out this study. We also thank Prof. Zhengwang Zhang for providing photographs and sequences of the Indian Cuckoo, as well as Xinliang Guo, Longwu Wang, Xiao Xu, Na Wang and Tongping Su for assistance with the field work.

  • Alvarez F. 1993. Proximity to trees facilitates parasitism by Cuckoos Cuculus canorus on Rufous Warblers Cercotrichas galactotes. Ibis, 135: 331.
    Alvarez F. 1994. A gens of Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitizing Rufous Bush Chat Cercotrichas galactotes. J Avian Biol, 25: 239–243.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Kleven O, Honza M, Røskaft E. 2006a. Eggshell strength of an obligate brood parasite: a test of the puncture resistance hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 60: 11–18.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2006b. Coevolutionary interactions between Common Cuckoos and Corn Buntings. Condor, 108: 414–422.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2007. First evidence of regular Common Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, parasitism on Eastern Olivaceous Warblers, Hippolais pallida elaeica. Naturwissenschaften, 94: 307–312.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Ranke PS, Fossøy F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2010b. Absence of egg discrimination in a suitable Cuckoo Cuculus canorus host breeding away from trees. J Avian Biol, 41: 501–504.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Ranke PS, Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Møller AP, Shykoff JA. 2010a. Egg phenotype differentiation in sympatric Cuckoo Cuculus canorus gentes. J Evol Biol, 23: 1170–1182.
    Baker ECS. 1942. Cuckoo Problems. HF & G Witherby, London.
    Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. 2012. Responses of potential hosts of Asian cuckoos to experimental parasitism. Ibis, 154: 363–371.
    Brooke MdL, Davies NB. 1988. Egg mimicry by Cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature, 335: 630–632.
    Brooke MdL, Davies NB. 1991. A failure to demonstrate host imprinting in the Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) and alternative hypotheses for the maintenance of egg mimicry. Ethology, 89: 154–166.
    Brooker MG, Brooker LC. 1989. The comparative breeding behaviour of two sympatric cuckoos, Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis and the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo C. lucidus in western Australia: a new model for the evolution of egg morphology and host specificity in avian brood parasites. Ibis, 131: 528–547.
    Chance E. 1940. The truth about the Cuckoo. Country Life, London.
    Cherry MI, Bennett ATD. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc Lond B, 268: 565–571.
    Clotfelter ED. 1998. What cues do Brown-headed Cowbirds use to locate Red-winged Blackbird host nests? Anim Behav, 55: 1181–1189.
    Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1988. Cuckoos versus Reed Warblers. Adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav, 36: 262–284.
    Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1989a. An experimental study of coevolution between the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol, 58: 207–224.
    Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1989b. An experimental study of coevolution between the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. II. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol, 58: 225–236.
    Davies NB. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. T&AD Poyser, London. Dawkins R, Krebs JR. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B, 205: 489–511.
    Edvardsen E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Øien IJ, Honza M. 2001. Egg mimicry in Cuckoos parasitizing four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. Condor, 103: 829–837.
    Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Vikan JR, Møller AP, Shykoff JA, Stokke BG. 2011. Genetic differentiation among sympatric Cuckoo host races: males matter. Proc R Soc Lond B, 278: 1639–1645.
    Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke MdL, Davies NB, Nakamura H. 2000. Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the Common Cuckoo. Nature, 407: 183–186.
    Grim T, Samaš P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. 2011. Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol, 80: 508–518.
    Grim T. 2007. Experimental evidence for chick discrimination without recognition in a brood parasite host. Proc R Soc Lond B, 274: 373–381.
    Higuchi H. 1998. Host use and egg color in Japanese cuckoos. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 80–93.
    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: 341–352.
    Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2002. Behaviour of female Common Cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav, 64: 861–868.
    Hosoi SA, Rothstein SI. 2000. Nest desertion and cowbird parasitism: evidence for evolved responses and evolutionary lag. Anim Behav, 59: 823–840.
    Jourdain FCR. 1925. A study of parasitism in the Cuckoos. Proc zool Soc Lond, 1925: 639–667.
    Kleven O, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Stokke BG, Honza M. 2004. Breeding success of Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus parasitising four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol, 35: 394–398.
    Lack D. 1968. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. Methuen, London. Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM. 2003. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature, 422: 157–160.
    Langmore NE, Maurer G, Adcock GJ, Kilner RM. 2008. Socially aquired host-specific mimicry and the evolution of host races in Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo Chalcites basalis. Evolution, 62: 1689–1699.
    Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Heinsohn R, Hall ML, Peters A, Kilner RM. 2011. Visual mimicry of host nestlings by cuckoos. Proc R Soc Lond B, 278: 2455–2463.
    Lindholm AK, Thomas RJ. 2000. Differences between populations of Reed Warblers in defences against brood parasitism. Behaviour, 137: 25–42.
    Lindholm AK. 2000. Tests of fenotypic plasticity in Reed Warbler defences against Cuckoo parasitism. Behaviour, 137: 43–60.
    Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. 1992. Rejection of Cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol, 3: 128–132.
    Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and Cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim Behav, 49: 1185–1209.
    Lotem A, Nakamura H. 1998. Evolutionary equilibria in avian brood parasitism. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 223–235.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC. 1991a. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial Cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour, 116: 64–89.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT. 1991b. Rejection behavior by Common Cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk, 108: 348–354.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Korsnes L. 1993. Rejection of Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs by Meadow Pipits (Anthus pratensis). Behav Ecol, 4: 120–127.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Skjelseth S, Stokke BG, Kleven O, Lisle Gibbs H, Honza M, Taborsky B, Teuschl Y, Taborsky M. 2008. Individual female Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus lay constant egg types but egg appearance cannot be used to assign eggs to females. J Avian Biol, 39: 238–241.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Tysse T. 1995b. On the evolution of blue Cuckoo eggs in Europe. J Avian Biol, 26: 13–19.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1987. Cuckoo host interactions in Norwegian mountain areas. Ornis Scand, 18: 168–172.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1992. Responses of some rare Cuckoo hosts to mimetic model Cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand, 23: 17–23.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1995a. Egg-morphs and host preference in the Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus: an analysis of Cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool Lond, 236: 625–648.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Greger Hagen L, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH. 2000. Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis, 142: 247–258.
    Nakamura H, Miyazawa Y. 1997. Movements, space use and social organization of radio-tracked Common Cuckoos during the breeding season in Japan. Jap J Ornithol, 46: 23–54.
    Øien IJ, Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1996. The risk of parasitism in relation to the distance from Reed Warbler nests to Cuckoo perches. J Anim Ecol, 65: 147–153.
    Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Honza M. 1998. Costs of Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism to Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. J Avian Biol, 29: 209–215.
    Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 1995. Evolution of variation in egg color and marking pattern in European passerines: adaptations in a coevolutionary arms race with the Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol, 6: 166–174.
    Payne RB. 1973a. Behavior, mimetic songs and song dialects, and relationships of the parasitic indigobirds Vidua of Africa. Orn Monogr, 11: 1–333.
    Payne RB. 1973b. Vocal mimicry of the Paradise Whydahs (Vidua) and responses of female Whydahs to the song of their hosts (Pytilia) and their mimics. Anim Behav, 21: 762–771.
    Payne RB. 1976. Song mimicry and species relationships among the West African pale-winged indigobirds. Auk, 93: 25–38.
    Payne RB. 2005. The Cuckoos. Oxford Univ Press, New York.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 2004. Correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Condor, 106: 580–599.
    Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Lotem A. 1999. How to detect a Cuckoo egg: a signal-detection theory model for recognition and learning. Am Nat, 153: 633–648.
    Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Meilvang D, Bičík V, Jemelìková J, Honza M. 2002b. No evidence for recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers. J Avian Biol, 33: 31–38.
    Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Bičík V, Moskát C. 2002a. Aggression to dummy Cuckoos by potential European Cuckoo hosts. Behaviour, 139: 613–628.
    Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Moskát C, Honza M. 2002c. The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection bahavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in Cuckoos. Behav Ecol, 13: 163–168.
    Røskaft E, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Stokke BG. 2006. Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defences against brood parasitism. Behav Ecol, 17: 700–708.
    Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. 1998. Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
    Rothstein SI. 1990. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 21: 481–508.
    Rutila J, Latja R, Koskela K. 2002. The Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus and its cavity nesting host, the Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus: a peculiar cuckoo-host system? J Avian Biol, 33: 414–419.
    Sato NJ, Tokue K, Noske RA, Mikami OK, Ueda, K. 2010. Evicting cuckoo nestlings from the nest: a new anti-parasitism behaviour. Biol Lett, 6: 67–69.
    Skjelseth S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Lisle Gibbs H, Taborsky M, Taborsky B, Honza M, Kleven O. 2004. Parentage and host preference in the Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus. J Avian Biol, 35: 21–24.
    Soler JJ, Møller AP. 1996. A comparative analysis of the evolution of variation in the appearance of eggs of European passerines in relation to brood parasitism. Behav Ecol, 7: 89–94.
    Spaw CD, Rohwer S. 1987. A comparative study of eggshell thickness in cowbirds and other passerines. Condor, 89: 307–318.
    Spottiswoode CN. 2010. The evolution of host-specific variation in Cuckoo eggshell strength. J Evol Biol, 33: 1792–1799.
    Starling M, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A, Langmore NE. 2006. Cryptic gentes revealed in Pallid Cuckoos Cuculus pallidus using reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc Lond B, 273: 1929–1934.
    Stoddard MC, Prum RO. 2008. Evolution of avian plumage color in a tetrahedral color space: A phylogenetic analysis of new world buntings. Am Nat, 171: 755–776.
    Stokke BG, Hafstad I, Rudolfsen G, Bargain B, Beier J, Bigas Campàs D, Dyrcz A, Honza M, Leisler B, Pap PL, Patapavičius R, Procházka P, Schulze-Hagen K, Thomas R, Moksnes A, Møller AP, Røskaft E, Soler M. 2007a. Host density predicts presence of Cuckoo parasitism in Reed Warblers. Oikos, 116: 913–922.
    Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Honza M. 1999. Rejection of artificial Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs in relation to variation in egg appearance among Reed Warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus). Proc R Soc Lond B, 266: 1483–1488.
    Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2002. Obligate brood parasites as selective agents for evolution of egg appearance in passerine birds. Evolution, 56: 199–205.
    Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2005. The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithol Sci, 4: 17–29.
    Stokke BG, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2007b. The importance of clutch characteristics and learning for antiparasite adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Evolution, 61: 2212–2228.
    Takasu F. 1998a. Modelling the arms race in avian brood parasitism. Evol Ecol, 12: 969–987.
    Takasu F. 1998b. Why do all host species not show defense against avian brood parasitism: Evolutionary lag or equilibrium? Am Nat, 151: 193–205.
    Teuschl Y, Taborsky B, Taborsky M. 1998. How do Cuckoos find their hosts? The role of habitat imprinting. Anim Behav, 56: 1425–1433.
    Tokue K, Ueda K. 2010. Mangrove Gerygones Gerygone laevigaster eject Little Bronze cuckoo Chalcites minutillus hatchlings from parasitized nests. Ibis, 152: 835–839.
    Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Huhta E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. 2011. Outcomes of brood parasite-host interactions mediated by egg matching: Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus versus Fringilla finches. PLoS ONE, 6: 1–13.
    Vikan JR, Stokke BG, Rutila J, Huhta E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2010. Evolution of defences against Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) parasitism in Bramblings (Fringilla montifringilla): a comparison of four populations in Fennoscandia. Evol Ecol, 24: 1141–1157.
    Wyllie I. 1981. The Cuckoo. Universe Books, New York. Yang C, Liang W, Antonov A, Cai Y, Stokke BG, Fossøy F, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2012. Diversity of parasitic cuckoos and their hosts in China. Chinese Birds, 3: 9–32.
    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: 1–8.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Tables(1)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (2316) PDF downloads (1662) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return