4.5 Article

The effectiveness of hawk mimicry in protecting cuckoos from aggressive hosts

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 83, 期 1, 页码 263-268

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.036

关键词

Accipiter nisus; Acrocephalus arundinaceus; common cuckoo; Cuculus canorus; great reed warbler; mimicry; nest defence; parasitism; sparrowhawk

资金

  1. Slovak Grant Agency for Science VEGA [1/0566/09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The close resemblance between the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and the Eurasian sparrowhawk, Accipiter nisus, is often viewed as Batesian mimicry evolved by the cuckoo in response to the aggression of its host. However, the effectiveness of such mimicry is poorly known. We examined cuckoo-hawk discrimination ability in the great reed warbler, Acrocephalus arundinaceus, a well-known and aggressive cuckoo host. We measured the responses of birds to three combinations of simultaneously presented taxidermic mounts of the cuckoo, sparrowhawk and turtle dove, as a harmless control, placed near their nests. Great reed warblers clearly discriminated the two enemies from the innocuous species. They always attacked cuckoos and sparrowhawks more often than turtle doves suggesting they considered both a danger to their broods. However, when we confronted the tested birds with the simultaneously presented mounts of these species, the parents attacked the cuckoo more frequently than the sparrowhawk. The results revealed that although great reed warblers attacked both cuckoo and sparrowhawk mounts near their nest, they were able to discriminate between them. This may suggest that if cuckoos had evolved the visual mimicry of a sparrowhawk to avoid host attacks, this mimicry may be unsuccessful not only because it is imperfect and hosts can learn to discriminate but also because of the generalized nest defence of more aggressive hosts. (C) 2011 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据