Nest architecture influences host use by avian brood parasites and is shaped by coevolutionary dynamics

Abstract

Brood (social) parasites and their hosts exhibit a wide range of adaptations and counter-adaptations as part of their ongoing coevolutionary arms races. Obligate avian brood parasites are expected to use potential host species with more easily accessible nests, while potential hosts are expected to evade parasitism by building more concealed nests that are difficult for parasites to enter and in which to lay eggs. We used phylogenetically informed comparative analyses, a global database of the world's brood parasites, their host species, and the design of avian host and non-host nests (approx. 6200 bird species) to examine first, whether parasites preferentially target host species that build open nests and, second, whether host species that build enclosed nests are more likely to be targeted by specialist parasites. We found that species building more accessible nests are more likely to serve as hosts, while host species with some of the more inaccessible nests are targeted by more specialist brood parasites. Furthermore, evolutionary-transition analyses demonstrate that host species building enclosed nests frequently evolve to become non-hosts. We conclude that nest architecture and the accessibility of nests for parasitism represent a critical stage of the ongoing coevolutionary arms race between avian brood parasites and their hosts.

Repeatability of an extended phenotype: potential causes and consequences of nest variation in the Northern House Wren (Troglodytes aedon aedon)

“…Stanback et al (2013) suggested that wrens were modulating the nest structure to accommodate for perceived vulnerabilities in the cavity, and our data support this conclusion. For example, the size of the entrance hole is a potential source of vulnerability, as more accessible nests are more likely to be depredated and parasitized (Paclík et al 2009, Hauber et al 2024). Alternatively, larger entrances could increase heat loss, increasing the threat of hypothermia for the offspring (Lamprecht and Schmolz 2004).…”

“…Although the architecture of the nests of other bird species have shown to be beneficial to the fitness of the builder (Mainwaring et al 2014), House Wren nest architecture appears to be unrelated to the mate selection process, the survivability of offspring (Alworth 1996, Eckerle & Thompson 2005, or the limiting of brood parasitism (Pribil & Picman 1997). Thus, the available evidence suggests that nest architecture in this species has limited effects on fitness, and so it remains unclear why House Wren nests exhibit such extreme variation among individuals.…”

Nest Design and Breeding Success: Replicability of Methodologies and Research Findings in Secondary Hole Nesting Passerines

“…Broad nest types have been described for more than 5000 of the more than 10,000 identified bird species, but the size of nest structures is known for less than 400 species, and the descriptions and measurements of the masses of nest components in dismantled nests have been undertaken for less than 50 species [5]. The plant or animal species used as materials to construct or decorate bird nests have been rarely mentioned in scientific publications (e.g., [5,13,[27][28][29][30][31][32]). Empirical studies of associations between avian nest design and breeding success remain scarce [33] even though costs and benefits of nest design are always expected to influence at least one aspect of reproductive success.…”