Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Aug 7;271(Suppl 5):S317–S320. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0168

Patterns and coevolutionary consequences of repeated brood parasitism.

Mark E Hauber 1, Pamela J Yeh 1, John O L Roberts 1
PMCID: PMC1810053  PMID: 15504005

Abstract

The absence of adaptive host responses to virulent parasites and pathogens is paradoxical. We explored the theoretical possibility that the evolution of antiparasitic egg-ejection strategies was delayed by avian hosts' lifetime experiences with brood parasitism. An analytical model indicated that individual hosts' repeated exposure to parasitism decreased the relative benefits of learning-based rejecter strategies when parasitism was particularly costly. Because brood parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and their hosts are typically philopatric across breeding attempts, spatially and temporally non-random patterns of parasitism may contribute to low levels of observed egg-ejection by vulnerable cowbird hosts. In support, we found that in three populations of two host species individual females experienced repeated cowbird parasitism during their lifetimes. We propose that repeated parasitism contributes to counterintuitive patterns of coevolutionary dynamics in spatially structured host-parasite populations.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (96.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Hosoi SA, Rothstein SI. Nest desertion and cowbird parasitism: evidence for evolved responses and evolutionary lag. Anim Behav. 2000 Apr;59(4):823–840. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Langmore Naomi E., Hunt Sarah, Kilner Rebecca M. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature. 2003 Mar 13;422(6928):157–160. doi: 10.1038/nature01460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Reboreda J. C., Clayton N. S., Kacelnik A. Species and sex differences in hippocampus size in parasitic and non-parasitic cowbirds. Neuroreport. 1996 Jan 31;7(2):505–508. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199601310-00031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Servedio Maria R., Lande Russell. Coevolution of an avian host and its parasitic cuckoo. Evolution. 2003 May;57(5):1164–1175. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00325.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Thompson John N., Cunningham Bradley M. Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature. 2002 Jun 13;417(6890):735–738. doi: 10.1038/nature00810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Yeh Pamela J. Rapid evolution of a sexually selected trait following population establishment in a novel habitat. Evolution. 2004 Jan;58(1):166–174. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01583.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES