Brian D. PEER, James W. RIVERS, Stephen I. ROTHSTEIN. 2013: The Brown-headed Cowbird: North America's avian brood parasite. Avian Research, 4(1): 93-98. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0006
Citation: Brian D. PEER, James W. RIVERS, Stephen I. ROTHSTEIN. 2013: The Brown-headed Cowbird: North America's avian brood parasite. Avian Research, 4(1): 93-98. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0006

The Brown-headed Cowbird: North America's avian brood parasite

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Brian D. Peer, E-mail: BD-Peer@wiu.edu

  • Received Date: 13 Feb 2013
  • Accepted Date: 08 Mar 2013
  • Available Online: 23 Apr 2023
  • There are five species of parasitic cowbirds (Molothrus) and the Brown-headed Cowbird (M. ater) is the only widespread species in North America. The Brown-headed Cowbird is a host generalist and is typically found in open habitats and forest edges. The cowbirds are of a more recent origin than many other brood parasites and perhaps as a result, cowbird adaptations for parasitism and their hosts' counter-adaptations to thwart parasitism do not appear as sophisticated as those of other brood parasite-host systems. Because of its generalist nature, the cowbird has the potential to negatively impact endangered host species whose populations are limited due to anthropogenic habitat loss. As a consequence, the Brown-headed Cowbird is one of the few brood parasitic species that is the subject of control programs to limit its effects on such hosts.

  • Habitat selection and availability of suitable habitats differ among populations across spatial and temporal scales as distribution and quality of resources vary over space and time (Boyce, 2006; Avila-Flores et al., 2010). Many widespread species respond differently to local habitat conditions among diverse parts of their populations (Avila-Flores et al., 2010). Edge populations, for instance, are typically restricted to habitat islands immersed in a matrix of unsuitable habitats (Hampe and Petit, 2005). In consequence, regional data on the behavior of some animals are not universally applicable (e.g. pheasants, see Gatti et al., 1989). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct similar studies in a number of different places in order to obtain a complete understanding of the behavior of wildlife, e.g. habitat use and movements.

    Reeves's Pheasant (Syrmaticus reevesii) is a threatened species endemic to China (Cheng, 1987) and has been extirpated from much of its historical range in China (Zheng and Wang, 1998). Some of its populations are found in nature reserves and others in areas outside these reserves (Xu et al., 2007) and even in some forest farms subjected to heavy logging. Many investigations have been conducted on the habitat use of this species (Sun et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2006, 2007, 2011), its home range (Sun et al., 2003; Xu et al., 2009), daily movement patterns and site fidelity (Xu et al., 2009) in a national nature reserve; however, little is known about the habitat and home range of this pheasant in areas outside nature reserves, especially on forest farms.

    Therefore, we examined home range, daily movement and habitat use of this pheasant using radio-telemetry on a forest farm. Our main objectives were: 1) to estimate home range size and daily movements and 2) to investigate habitat composition of these home ranges.

    Field work was conducted from March to August in 2003 on the Xianjuding Forest Farm (114°26′48″E, 31°32′20″N), over an area of about 2162 ha located on the northern slopes of the Dabie mountain range, Hubei Province, central China. The forest farm is situated at the edge of the northern subtropical zone. Its vegetation is characterized by mature plantations (Fig. 1) dominated by Masson pine (Pinus massoniana), Larix spp., Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata), Metasequoia glyptostroboides and China Wingnut (Pterocarya stenoptera). The shrubby areas are dominated by young oaks (Quercus spp.), young Chinese firs, glaucous allspice (Lindera glauca) and teas (Camellia spp.). The elevation of this forest farm ranges from 300 to 600 m, with the highest peak at 680.2 m. The climate is warm and humid with a mean annual temperature of 15.4℃ and a mean annual precipitation of 1114.9 mm.

    Figure  1.  Habitats on Xianjuding Forest Farm in Hubei Province, China

    We used the method described in Xu et al.(2007, 2009) to capture and track the males on the Xianjuding Forest Farm in March 2003. Birds were located in the spring (from March to May) and summer (from June to August) (Xu et al., 2007, 2009).

    With the use of the Animal Movement software and detected locations, the home range was estimated based on a 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) and a 95% fixed kernel. We defined a 60% fixed kernel as a core area (Xu et al., 2009). All fixed kernel estimations were based on least squares cross validation for deriving a smoothing factor. We used the size of the home range, obtained by the 95% fixed kernel contours, for additional analyses. The average distance between consecutive locations (every 12 hrs) was calculated and used as an index of daily mobility for each individual, referred to as daily movement (Cardinal and Paxton, 2005). First, we assessed the home range, core areas and daily movement of the males in the breeding seasons (including spring and summer) and then made independent assessments in the spring and summer.

    A 1:10000 vegetation map supplied by the administration of the forest farm was "ground-truthed" by field observations to digitize and produce a land cover map of the study site. The habitats within the main study area were classified into pine plantations, broadleaf and conifer mixed forests, Chinese fir plantations, farmland, broadleaf forests, bamboo forests and shrubby areas (Fig. 1) according to present plant species and their coverage.

    We followed Neu et al. (1974), using a χ2 test of goodness of fit and a Bonferroni Z-statistic to test the habitat use of Reeves's Pheasant in the study area. From the radio locations of these pheasants during each season, a minimum convex polygon (MCP) was obtained and a 100 m buffer established, based on the MCP with some radio locations located on the borderline. After removing the area of the reservoir, the MCP and the buffer comprised the available area. The proportion of radio locations within a habitat type was considered as used, while the proportion of the corresponding habitat type area in the available area as the control.

    We used randomized repeated measures (Edgington, 1980) to test the difference in the home range and core areas of this pheasant between spring and summer seasons.

    Statistics are provided as mean ± 1 standard deviation (SD). For all statistical tests, a probability of 0.05 or less was considered to be significant. Randomized tests were performed by psychStats (http://www.lcsdg.com/psychStats) online in 2006. Other statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 10.0.1 for Windows (SPSS Inc., 1999).

    We only tracked four male Reeves's Pheasants, given the difficulty in finding the birds (Xu et al., 2007) and the small population size of this pheasant in this area (Zhang, 2002). One male, however, was unfortunately killed by its predator after about two weeks. Therefore, we only included 202 radio locations from three individuals in our analyses.

    The average home range size of male Reeves's Pheasants in the breeding seasons was 33.17 ± 12.55 ha based on minimum convex polygons and 21.05 ± 5.61 ha based on the 95% fixed kernel estimator. The average core area was 3.92 ± 0.27 ha. The size of the home range did not vary between spring and summer (test of randomized repeated measures, MCP: p = 0.25; 95% Kernel: p = 0.25; see Table 1). Similar trends prevailed in the core areas (test of randomized repeated measures, p = 0.50; see Table 1) and daily movements (test of randomized repeated measures, p = 1.000).

    Table  1.  Home range, core areas and daily movements of radio-tracked male Reeves's Pheasants in spring and summer on the Xianjuding Forest Farm, Hubei
    Season Individual code Home range (ha) Core area (ha) Daily movements (m)
    MCP Kernel (95%)
    Spring M224 8.31 11.15 1.08 137.27
    M273 26.08 24.70 6.77 212.46
    M793 47.56 34.84 5.55 188.48
    27.31 ± 19.65 23.56 ± 11.88 4.47 ± 3.00 179.40 ± 38.41
    Summer M224 6.05 7.70 1.96 127.44
    M273 26.00 20.39 3.36 211.43
    M793 14.72 24.36 4.58 205.21
    15.59 ± 10.00 17.48 ± 8.70 3.30 ± 1.31 181.36 ± 47.00
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The habitat composition of home ranges and core areas varied among different individuals. The Chinese fir plantation dominated the home ranges and core areas of the male pheasants (Table 2). In particular, male birds could use part of the bamboo forests which accounted for 26.44% of the home range in the spring and 27.09% in the summer, while it constituted about 50% of the core area in the spring and summer seasons.

    Table  2.  Habitat compositions of home ranges and core areas of male Reeves's Pheasants on the Xianjuding Forest Farm, Hubei (unit: %)
    Types Season Individual code Shrub Fir Broadleaf Bamboo Farmland
    Home range Spring M224 2.25 47.01 11.84 26.44 12.46
    M273 7.15 66.15 16.81 0.51 9.38
    M793 1.27 50.10 24.43 0.54 23.67
    Summer M224 3.48 24.74 12.91 37.09 21.78
    M273 8.16 65.44 16.26 3.80 6.34
    M793 0.04 48.77 35.58 0 14.61
    Core areas Spring M224 0 43.89 1.68 49.31 5.13
    M273 21.84 70.41 5.91 0 1.84
    M793 0 72.07 2.72 0 25.21
    Summer M224 0 16.34 18.57 51.68 13.41
    M273 31.67 68.33 0 0 0
    M793 0 94.88 0 0 5.12
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The male pheasants used these habitat types selectively in spring and summer (Spring: χ2 = 12.99, df = 4, p = 0.011; Summer: χ2 = 11.39, df = 4, p = 0.023). Largely, the males used the Chinese fir plantations and avoided the broadleaf forests in both spring and summer seasons (Table 3). It also avoided shrubby areas in the spring, while these areas were used in proportion to their availability in the summer (Table 3). Moreover, the bird used farmland and bamboo forests in proportion to their availability.

    Table  3.  Habitat use of Reeves's Pheasants in spring and summer on the Xianjuding Forest Farm, Hubei, based on Neu et al. (1977). "++" means that the proportion of radiolocations within a type of habitat was more than the proportion of area of the corresponding habitat, and vice versa for "--".
    Habitat type Availability a Spring Summer
    Rate of use b Number of use c Confidence interval U vs. A d Rate of use Number of use Confidence interval U vs. A
    Lower Upper Lower Upper
    Shrub 0.064 0.020 2 –0.016 0.056 -- 0.030 3 –0.014 0.073
    Fir 0.537 0.703 71 0.586 0.820 ++ 0.683 69 0.564 0.803 ++
    Farm 0.035 0.089 9 0.016 0.162 0.050 5 –0.006 0.105
    Broadleaf 0.204 0.079 8 0.010 0.149 -- 0.059 6 –0.001 0.120 --
    Bamboo 0.160 0.109 11 0.029 0.189 0.178 18 0.080 0.276
    a Availability is the proportion of area of a type of habitat in the available area;
    b Rate of use is the proportion of radiolocations in the corresponding habitat;
    c Number of use is the number of radiolocations in the corresponding habitat;
    d "U vs. A" means "use vs. availability".
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    An understanding of the movement and habitat use of pheasants is fundamental to habitat management regimes. Our findings are the first step towards a more detailed knowledge of the responses of Reeves's Pheasant to habitat conditions in an artificial landscape, i.e. a forest farm. However, caution must be taken when interpreting our results given the small sample size. We also had to limit our results to males of Reeves's Pheasant, for there is little information available on females in these habitats. Nevertheless, given its conservation status and the relatively high proportion of artificial plantations in its range of distribution, the knowledge on the biology of this bird in artificial plantations remains scarce.

    The size of the home ranges and core areas of the male pheasants in the Dongzhai National Nature Reserve in Henan Province (Sun et al., 2003; Xu et al., 2009) seemed larger than those we assessed in this landscape. Many factors could have great impacts on the size of the home range, such as body size (Jenkins and Benn, 1998), habitat quality and food abundance (Elchuk and Wiebe, 2003), and human disturbance (Koehler and Pierce, 2003). However, these differences may result from the small sample size on the Xianjuding Forest Farm and it is therefore necessary to track more individuals on this farm in the future.

    The habitat composition of the home ranges and core areas of male Reeves's Pheasants varied greatly among different individuals, implying this pheasant could adapt itself to different habitat conditions. As one of the typical plantations, Chinese fir plantations now occupy a larger part, especially on some forest farms (Zhang et al., 2000). This male pheasant prefers Chinese fir plantations and shows no preference to broadleaf forests on the farm. Chinese fir plantations on the Xianjuding Forest Farm have a dense canopy with sparse undergrowth, similar to that in the Dongzhai Nature Reserve (Xu et al., 2007). In contrast, the canopy of broadleaf forests in this area is sparse as is its undergrowth. In particular, Chinese fir plantations in this area should be beneficial to the activities of this pheasant, whereas the broadleaf might limit it (Xu et al., 1991).

    The bamboo forests did not account for much on this farm, but occupied a large part of the home range of one bird we tracked. We also found some activity traces of males in bamboo forests in the field. Overall, the structure of bamboo forests is more or less similar to that of Chinese fir plantations and very convenient for this pheasant to move inside. However, Reeves's Pheasants roost in big trees (Sun et al., 2002) and, indeed we found the males we tracked in the bamboo forests to be roosting in big Chinese fir trees or oaks. Therefore, it was reasonable to state that the landscape structure of its habitat might have an effect on the habitat use of this pheasant.

    The farmland might provide supplementary food for Reeves's Pheasants in some places, especially in the winter (Wu et al., 1994). However, farmland was not an important habitat for the males in the Xianjuding Forest Farm, a condition also reported in the Dongzhai National Nature Reserve (Xu et al., 2007, 2009) although we observed some non-tracked individuals occasionally foraging in farmland near the forest edge, implying that there was sufficient food within their home ranges, but a lack of cover made them susceptible to predation (Xu et al., 2002).

    Funding and support for this study were provided by the Forestry Commonweal Programs of the Ministry of Science & Technology of China (No. 200904003) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30800103).

  • Alderson GW, Gibbs HL, Sealy SG. 1999. Determining the reproductive behaviour of individual Brown-headed Cowbirds using microsatellite DNA markers. Anim Behav, 58: 595–605.
    Arcese P, Smith JNM, Hatch MI. 1996. Nest predation by cowbirds and its consequences for passerine demography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 93: 4608–4611.
    Barber DR, Martin TE. 1997. Influence of alternate host densities on Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism rates in Black-capped Vireos. Condor, 99: 595–604.
    Briskie JV, Sealy SG. 1990. Evolution of short incubation periods in the parasitic cowbirds, Molothrus spp. Auk, 107: 789–794.
    Cruz A, Post W, Wiley JW, Ortega CP, Nakamura T, Prather JW. 1998. Potential impacts of cowbird range expansion in Florida. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 313–336.
    Cruz A, Prather JW, Post W, Wiley JW. 2000. The spread of Shiny and Brown-headed Cowbirds into the Florida region. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 47–57.
    Curson DR, Goguen CB, Mathews NE. 2000. Long-distance commuting by Brown-headed Cowbirds in New Mexico. Auk, 117: 795–799.
    DiGiacomo AG, Mahler B, Reboreda JC. 2010. Screaming Cowbird parasitism of nests of Solitary Caciques and Cattle Tyrants. Wilson J Ornith, 122: 795–799.
    Douglas DJT, Newson SE, Leech DI, Noble DG, Robinson RA. 2010. How important are climate-induced changes in host availability for population processes in an obligate brood parasite, the European Cuckoo? Oikos, 119: 1834–1840.
    Dubina KM, Peer BD. 2013. Egg pecking and discrimination by female and male Brown-headed Cowbirds. J Ornithol. doi: .
    Dufty Jr AM. 1982. Movements and activities of radio-tracked Brown-headed Cowbirds. Auk, 99: 316–327.
    Elliott PF. 1978. Cowbird parasitism in the Kansas tallgrass prairie. Auk, 95: 161–167.
    Elliott PF. 1999. Killing of host nestlings by the Brown-headed Cowbird. J Field Ornithol, 70: 55–57.
    Ellison K, Lowther PE. 2009. Bronzed Cowbird (Molothrus aeneus). In: Poole A (ed) The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: " target="_blank">10.2173/bna.144">http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/144doi:10.2173/bna.144.
    Fleischer RC, Smyth AP, Rothstein SI. 1987. Temporal and agerelated variation in the laying rate of the Brown-headed Cowbird in the eastern Sierra Nevada, CA. Can J Zool, 65: 2724–2730.
    Gill SA, Sealy SG. 2004. Functional reference in an alarm signal given during nest defence: seet calls of Yellow Warblers denote brood-parasitic Brown-headed Cowbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 56: 71–80.
    Hammer ML. 2011. The US Army, Fort Hood Garrison Annual Report.
    Holford KC, Roby DD. 1993. Factors limiting fecundity of captive Brown-headed Cowbirds. Condor, 95: 536–545.
    Hoover JP, Robinson SK. 2007. Retaliatory mafia behavior by a parasitic cowbird favors host acceptance of parasitic eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 104: 4479–4483.
    Hosoi SA, Rothstein SI. 2000. Nest desertion and cowbird parasitism: Evidence for evolved responses and evolutionary lag. Anim Behav, 59: 823–840.
    Jaeckle WB, Kiefer M, Childs B, Harper RG, Rivers JW, Peer BD. 2012. Comparison of eggshell porosity and estimated gas flux between the Brown-headed Cowbird and two common hosts. J Avian Biol, 43: 486–490.
    Jensen WE, Cully Jr JF. 2005. Geographic variation in Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism on Dickcissels (Spiza americana) in Great Plains tallgrass prairie. Auk, 122: 648–660.
    Kozlovic DR, Knapton RW, Barlow JC. 1996. Unsuitability of the House Finch as a host of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Condor, 98: 253–258.
    Lichtenstein G, Sealy SG. 1998. Nestling competition, rather than supernormal stimulus, explains the success of parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird chicks in Yellow Warbler nests. Proc R Soc Lond B, 265: 249–254.
    Linz GM, Bolin SB, 1982. Incidence of Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism on Red-winged Blackbirds. Wilson Bull, 94: 93–95.
    Lowther PE. 2012. Lists of victims and hosts of the parasitic cowbirds (Molothrus). Field Museum version 11 Oct 2012. . Accessed 25 January 2013.
    Mayfield HF. 1965. The Brown-headed Cowbird, with old and new hosts. Living Bird, 4: 13–28.
    McLaren CM, Woolfenden BE, Gibbs HL, Sealy SG. 2003. Genetic and temporal patterns of multiple parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) on Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Can J Zool, 81: 281–286.
    Mermoz ME, Ornelas JJ. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of life-history adaptations in parasitic cowbirds. Behav Ecol, 15: 109–119.
    Middleton ALA. 1991. Failure of Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism in nests of the American Goldfinch. J Field Ornithol, 62: 200–203.
    Ortega CP. 1998. Cowbirds and Other Brood Parasites. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
    Peer BD, Bollinger EK. 1997. Explanations for the infrequent cowbird parasitism on Common Grackles. Condor, 99: 151–161.
    Peer BD, Bollinger EK. 2000. Why do female Brown-headed Cowbirds remove host eggs? A test of the incubation efficiency hypothesis. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 187–192.
    Peer BD, Ellison KE, Sealy SG. 2002. Intermediate frequencies of egg ejection by Northern Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) sympatric with two cowbird species. Auk, 119: 855–858.
    Peer BD, Hawkins LR, Steinke EP, Bollinger PB, Bollinger EK. 2006. Eastern Bluebirds eject Brown-headed Cowbird eggs. Condor, 108: 741–745.
    Peer BD, Rivers JW, Rothstein SI. 2013. Cowbirds, conservation, and coevolution: Potential misconceptions and directions for future research. Chinese Birds, 4.
    Peer BD, Robinson SK, Herkert JR. 2000. Egg rejection by cowbird hosts in grasslands. Auk, 117: 892–901.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 1999a. Parasitism and egg puncture behavior by Bronzed and Brown-headed cowbirds in sympatry. Stud Avian Biol, 18: 235–240.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 1999b. Laying time of the Bronzed Cowbird. Wilson Bull. 111: 137–139.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 2004. Correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Condor, 106: 580–599.
    Picman J. 1989. Mechanism of increased puncture resistance of eggs of Brown-headed Cowbirds. Auk, 106: 577–583.
    Post W, Sykes Jr PW. 2011 Reproductive status of the Shiny Cowbird in North America. Wilson J Ornithol, 123: 151–154.
    Reetz MJ, Musser JM, Kratter AW. 2010. Further evidence of breeding by Shiny Cowbirds in North America. Wilson J Ornithol, 122: 365–369.
    Rivers JW, Jensen WE, Kosciuch KL, Rothstein SI. 2010. Community-level patterns of host use by the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater), a generalist brood parasite. Auk, 127: 263–273.
    Rivers JW, Young S, Gonzalez E, Horton B, Lock B, Fleischer RC. 2012. High levels of relatedness between Brown-headed Cow-bird nestmates in a heavily-parasitized host community. Auk, 129: 623–631.
    Robinson SK. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois landscape. In: Hagan Ⅲ JM, Johnston DW (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp 455–471.
    Rohwer S, Spaw CD. 1988. Evolutionary lag versus bill-size constraints: A comparative study of the acceptance of cowbird eggs by old hosts. Evol Ecol, 2: 27–36.
    Rothstein SI, Patten M, Fleischer RC. 2002. Phylogeny, specialization, and brood parasite–host coevolution: Some possible pitfalls of parsimony. Behav Ecol, 13: 1–10.
    Rothstein SI, Peer BD. 2005. Conservation solutions for threat-ened and endangered cowbird (Molothrus spp.) hosts: Separating fact from fiction. Ornithol Monogr, 57: 98–114.
    Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. 1998. Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
    Rothstein SI, Verner J, Stevens E. 1984. Radio-tracking confirms a unique diurnal pattern of spatial occurrence in the parasitic brown-headed cowbird. Ecology, 65: 77–88.
    Rothstein SI. 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor, 77: 50–271.
    Rothstein SI. 1976. Cowbird parasitism of the Cedar Waxwing and its evolutionary implications. Auk, 93: 498–509.
    Schram BA. 1994. An open solicitation for cowbird recipes. Birding, 26: 254–257.
    Scott DM, Ankeny CD. 1983. The laying cycle of Brown-headed Cowbirds: Passerine chickens? Auk, 100: 583–593.
    Scott DM. 1991. The time of day of egg laying by the Brown-headed Cowbird and other icterines. Can J Zool, 69: 2093–2099.
    Sealy SG, Neudorf DL, Hill DP. 1995. Rapid laying in Brown-headed Cowbirds Molothrus ater and other parasitic birds. Ibis, 137: 76–84.
    Sealy SG, Neudorf DL, Hobson KA, Gill SA. 1998. Nest defense by potential hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird: Methodological approaches, benefits of defense, and coevolution. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 194–211.
    Sealy SG. 1992. Removal of Yellow Warbler eggs in association with cowbird parasitism. Condor, 94: 40–54.
    Sealy SG. 1995. Burial of cowbird eggs by parasitized Yellow Warblers: An empirical and experimental study. Anim Behav, 49: 877–889.
    Searcy WA, Yasukawa K. 1995. Polygyny and Sexual Selection in Red-winged Blackbirds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
    Sherry DF, Forbes MR, Khurgel M, Ivy GO. 1993. Females have a larger hippocampus than males in the brood-parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 90: 7839–7843.
    Strausberger BM, Ashley MV. 2005. Host use strategies of individual female Brown-headed Cowbirds Molothrus ater in a diverse avian community. J Avian Biol, 36: 313–321.
    Thompson Ⅲ FR. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds in the Midwestern United States. Auk, 111: 979–990.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(5)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1752) PDF downloads (1764) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return