2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2020.104158
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Egg rejection and egg recognition mechanism of chestnut thrushes (Turdus rubrocanus)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To avoid the influence of non-mimetic blue model eggs on the rejection rate of hosts due to similarity in color with host eggs, we included another treatment in which a white model egg was added directly to the nest of Elliot's Laughingthrushes to further test their egg recognition ability. The Chestnut Thrush showed a moderate rejection rate (54%) to foreign non-mimetic blue model eggs in a previous study (Yi et al 2020). Previous work showed that the presence of parasites near hosts' nests (Moksnes and Røskaft 1989;Moksnes et al 2000;Bartol et al 2002;Davies et al 2003) or nest sanitation (Yang et al 2015c) may increase the rejection of parasitic eggs.…”
Section: Egg Rejection Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…To avoid the influence of non-mimetic blue model eggs on the rejection rate of hosts due to similarity in color with host eggs, we included another treatment in which a white model egg was added directly to the nest of Elliot's Laughingthrushes to further test their egg recognition ability. The Chestnut Thrush showed a moderate rejection rate (54%) to foreign non-mimetic blue model eggs in a previous study (Yi et al 2020). Previous work showed that the presence of parasites near hosts' nests (Moksnes and Røskaft 1989;Moksnes et al 2000;Bartol et al 2002;Davies et al 2003) or nest sanitation (Yang et al 2015c) may increase the rejection of parasitic eggs.…”
Section: Egg Rejection Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…For example, in cuckoo parasitic systems, bird species lacking a history of cuckoo parasitism has low or no egg recognition ability, whereas cuckoo hosts often have varied egg recognition abilities (Davies and Brooke 1989a, b;Moksnes et al 1991a, b). Egg recognition ability acquired by hosts can be maintained for a considerable period of time (Peer et al 2007(Peer et al , 2011Yang et al 2014b;Yi et al 2020), even in the absence of cuckoo brood parasitism (Honza et al 2004;Lahti 2005Lahti , 2006. However, the level of host egg recognition ability is subject to variation under different parasitic pressure and coevolutionary time, with inter-and intra-specific variations in recognition and rejection of foreign eggs among hosts in the same area or among geographic populations of the same host (Brooke et al 1998;Lindholm and Thomas 2000;Moskát et al 2002Moskát et al , 2012Li et al 2016;Liang et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the process of egg rejection by host consists of at least three steps: first, the recognition of foreign eggs; second, the decision to discard eggs or not; and last, the rejection of foreign eggs (Soler et al 2012(Soler et al , 2017. There are two plausible views on the mechanism of host recognition of foreign eggs; one is templatebased recognition, also known as true recognition (Rothstein 1974(Rothstein , 1975Hauber and Sherman 2001), in which the host knows the characteristics of its own eggs through inheritance or learning and recognizes foreign eggs, independent of whether its own eggs are present or predominant in the nest (i.e., Moskát and Hauber 2007;Moskát et al 2010;Yi et al 2020). The second is recognition by discordancy, the simplest form of egg recognition, which determines the least similar eggs as foreign based on the discordancy of egg types within the nest (Rensch 1925;Rothstein 1974Rothstein , 1975Davies and Brooke 1989a;Yang et al 2014c).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, methodologies vary among studies, which may restrict the feasibility for comparisons. For example, combining with those studies that were filtered out from meta-analyses but were related with this topic, inconsistencies were found in the timing of testing, egg types (real or model eggs; Yang et al 2015a ; Peer 2017 ; Yi et al 2020 ), mimetic degree ( Underwood and Sealy 2006 ; Zölei et al 2012 ; Yang et al 2019b ), egg size and materials ( Guigueno and Sealy 2009 ; Roncalli et al 2016 ), egg colors ( Feng et al 2019 ), egg spots or patterns ( Wang et al 2015 ), or 3D or flat objects ( Poláčeket al 2013 ). Furthermore, the shapes and materials used in detecting nest sanitation varied as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%