No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels

Mominul Islam Nahid; Frode Fossøy; Bård G Stokke; Virginia Abernathy; Sajeda Begum; Naomi E Langmore; Eivin Røskaft; Peter S Ranke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253985

. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0253985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985

No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels

Mominul Islam Nahid ^1,^2,^*, Frode Fossøy ^1,³, Bård G Stokke ^1,³, Virginia Abernathy ⁴, Sajeda Begum ², Naomi E Langmore ⁴, Eivin Røskaft ¹, Peter S Ranke ⁵

Editor: Petr Heneberg⁶

PMCID: PMC8270166 PMID: 34242287

Abstract

Avian brood parasitism is costly for the host, in many cases leading to the evolution of defenses like discrimination of parasitic eggs. The parasite, in turn, may evolve mimetic eggs as a counter-adaptation to host egg rejection. Some generalist parasites have evolved host-specific races (gentes) that may mimic the eggs of their main hosts, while others have evolved ‘jack-of-all-trades’ egg phenotypes that mimic key features of the eggs of several different host species. The Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopaceus) is a widely distributed generalist brood parasite that exploits a wide range of host species. Based on human vision, previous studies have described Asian koel eggs as resembling those of its main host, the house crow (Corvus splendens). Using measurements of egg length and breadth, digital image analysis, reflectance spectrophotometry and avian visual modelling, we examined Asian koel egg variation and potential mimicry in egg size and shape, and eggshell pattern and color in three sympatrically occurring host species in Bangladesh: the common myna (Acridotheres tristis), house crow, and long-tailed shrike (Lanius schach). We found some differences among Asian koel eggs laid in different host nests: a) Asian koel eggs in long-tailed shrike nests were larger than those laid in common myna and house crow nests, and b) Asian koel eggs in house crow nests were less elongated than those in common myna nests. However, these changes in Asian koel egg volume and shape were in the opposite direction with respect to their corresponding host egg characteristics. Thus, our study found no evidence for Asian koel host-specific egg mimicry in three sympatrically occurring host species.

Introduction

Avian interspecific brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other species, the hosts, and trick them into raising their young, thereby avoiding the cost of parental care [1,2]. Successful brood parasitism is, in general, costly for the host species as it usually severely reduces or completely obliterates reproductive fitness of the host [2–5]. The high costs of parasitism drive the evolution of anti-parasite traits such as discrimination and rejection of parasitic eggs, i.e. identification and removal of the parasitic eggs from the nest [6,7]. Hosts use egg color [8–11], pattern [10,12–14], UV reflectance [e.g. 15–17], size [18–20, but see 21] and shape [22–25, but see 26] to identify and reject parasitic eggs in the clutch [for review, see 27, 28].

As a counter-adaptation to egg rejection, the parasite may evolve eggs that mimic host eggs in order to make it more difficult for hosts to recognize the parasitic egg [6,7, for review, see 27–30]. Although egg mimicry does not always evolve, potentially due to short time span of the host-parasite coevolutionary arms-race [30,31], host recognition abilities [9,31], metapopulation structures [32–34], exploitation of multiple hosts with different egg phenotypes [35–37] and possibly also climate variables [38], the evolution of egg mimicry is closely related to the evolution of host defenses (i.e., egg rejection) [30]. Furthermore, the evolution of egg mimicry may be more difficult to evolve for generalist than for specialist brood parasites, because the former have broader geographical distributions and exploit a wider variety of host species that lay eggs with different colors and patterns [39]. Some generalist brood parasites overcome this difficulty by evolving host-specific races, known as gentes, where each gens mimics the eggs of a particular host species [30,40,41]. Some generalist parasites may evolve mimicry of one of their main hosts, which later allows exploitation of new host species with similar egg phenotypes [42]. In other generalist parasites, host races may be absent, and they instead rely on a jack-of-all-trades mimicry, laying intermediate eggs relatively similar to all host eggs [46]. This strategy could only work if all of the hosts utilized lay eggs that are rather similar in appearance [43]. Even with the existence of host-specific races, the eggs of sympatric gentes may be similar in some egg traits [35–37], appearing to mimic the eggs of a range of hosts, even though parasitic females are mostly host-specific during egg laying [44,45]. However, some generalists show no or poor host egg mimicry (e.g. cowbirds, Molothrus sp.), because many of their hosts apparently lack the ability to reject foreign eggs [34,46,47]. Sometimes, parasite egg mimicry is not visible to the human eye due to differences between the human and avian visual systems [48,49]. Spectrophotometry has revealed that the pallid cuckoo (Cacomantis pallidus) lays mimetic, host-specific eggs that are not possible to detect by the human eye [50]. In contrast, the great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius) was, as assessed by the human eye, assumed to lay mimetic eggs of one its main hosts, the magpie (Pica pica), but further examination by spectrophotometry revealed that there is no mimicry of the great spotted cuckoo eggs towards the host [51]. Some brood parasites lay cryptic rather than mimetic eggs when parasitizing hosts with dimly-lit nests [52–54]. In low-light nest environments, the cryptic egg blends in with the nest lining, making it difficult for the host and other parasites to see the parasite eggs in the nest [52–54]. Laying cryptic eggs may be advantageous for generalist brood parasites as it requires less host specialization. Evolution of cryptic eggs may be due to competing cuckoos rather than host rejection [27], as multiple parasitism within the same host nest can select for cryptic cuckoo eggs [52]. This is because, when cuckoos parasitize a nest, they typically remove one host egg whilst laying their own. Thus, when multiple parasitism occurs, the cuckoo egg that is laid first is at risk of being removed by the second-to-arrive cuckoo. However, if the cuckoo egg is cryptic within the nest, the second-to-arrive cuckoo is more likely to remove a host egg [52–54].

The Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopaceus) is a non-evicting brood parasite, meaning that the koel chick often coexists with the host chicks [55,56]. However, in many cases, the parasitic chick outcompetes the host chicks and significantly reduces the host’s reproductive success [57]. The Asian koel has a wide distribution throughout Asia [55,56,58] which was documented 4000 years ago in ancient Vedic writings from India [1,59]. A total of seven subspecies of the Asian koel have been identified, with the nominate subspecies E. s. scolopaceus found in south Asia [60]. It is a generalist brood parasite that regularly utilizes at least 16 host species differing greatly in body size, nest type, diet, habitat and distribution [55,56,61]. However, there is no information about whether individual parasitic females are host-specific, i.e. that they lay their eggs only (or predominantly) in nests of a single host species. The Asian koel lays eggs with a grey-bluish to greenish ground color, which are partly covered with numerous brown or black spots [55–57]. Previous studies, based on human vision, have described the Asian koel eggs as mimetic of the eggs of its oldest host, the house crow (Corvus splendens) [56–58,62–66]. Closely related species, such as the Pacific koel (Eudynamis orientalis) and the long-tailed cuckoo (Urodynamis taitensis), lay eggs with very different appearances from the Asian koel [42,67]. However, it should be noted that the egg morphology of the Pacific koel may have evolved due to an arms race with their main hosts in Australia, and thus may not reflect the ancestral state of egg morphology in Asian koels [42]. Hence, although the ancestral state of egg appearance in these species is unknown, egg morphology has probably evolved as a result of co-evolutionary interactions with their hosts.

In this study, we examine how Asian koel eggs vary in size, shape, spotting pattern and color, compared to specific host species, based on avian visual systems. We selected three regularly used host species within a single area in Bangladesh: including the oldest known host, the house crow, the most recent known host, long-tailed shrike (Lanius schach) and the common myna (Acridotheres tristis) [57,59,68]. A previous study investigating rejection of blue and brown model eggs found that house crows rejected 9.1%, common mynas rejected 0%, and long-tailed shrikes rejected 75% of such eggs [69]. To examine Asian koel egg mimicry, we explore the following questions: 1) is there variation in egg phenotypes among Asian koels laying eggs in different host nests? and 2) is there evidence that Asian koels mimic the eggs of their selected hosts?

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All research and data collection were completed according to ethical laws of Bangladesh, and there was no injury to any birds in this study. The study was conducted on the Jahangirnagar University campus with the permission and monitoring of the Department of Zoology. The study was specifically approved by the review board of the wildlife and conservation biology branch, Department of Zoology after the evaluation of ethical laws of Bangladesh. The study site is an unprotected area, and all the study species are in the category of non-CITES, non-protected list of Bangladesh and least concern in the country’s Red list.

Study area

Fieldwork was carried out on the Jahangirnagar University campus (23°52΄ N, 90°16΄ E) including a teacher housing area, Arunapolli (23°52΄ N, 90°17΄ E), from 2008–2013 and 2015–2017. The study area is about 280 hectares and consists of diverse habitats including woodlands, grasslands, wetlands, cultivated lands and human settlements which make the campus area a fragmented habitat [70,71].

Parasite and host community

The Asian koel is the most common avian brood parasite in the study area [68], parasitizing three species (overall parasitism rates for all years in parentheses): the long-tailed shrike (55.6%, n = 126), the common myna (33.6%, n = 271) and the house crow (16.4%, n = 165) (Nahid et al. submitted, see also [57]). Multiple parasitism by the Asian koel is common in all these host species [68]. The house crow is the first mentioned host species of the Asian koel in the literature, documented around 375 A.D. in Sanskrit literature, and it is currently one of the most regularly exploited hosts across Asia [57,59,63,66], though the parasitism rate of this species is lower than the two other hosts at our study site [68]. The house crow builds open, shallow-cup nests and lays 3–6 eggs with bluish-green ground color and black or brown blotches [58,66,72]. However, a recent study confirmed that the house crow sometimes lays immaculate blue eggs [73]. In Bangladesh the common myna is also a regularly used host species and has become one of the main hosts of the Asian koel in our study area [57,68]. The common myna builds a variety of nest types that usually result in low-lit environments, including nesting in tree holes, inside buildings or roofs, or in the small space between joining palm leaves of coconut (Cocos nucifera), fishtail palm (Caryota urens) and fountain palm (Livistona chinensis) trees. Common mynas often also reconstruct old pied myna (Gracupica contra) or house crow nests. The eggs are immaculate blue and the clutch size is 4–5 eggs [58,74]. The long-tailed shrike is the most recent host species in Bangladesh [57,68]. This host builds small, open-cup shaped nests and lays 4–6 eggs with a pinkish-cream ground color and greyish and reddish spots on the blunt end [57,58]. Typical egg appearance of the Asian koel and its three corresponding host species is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1 — We include photographs of koel and host eggs from each species. All photos taken by V.E. Abernathy and M.I. Nahid. CM = common myna (n = 29 eggs from 11 nests), HC = house crow (n = 8 eggs from 3 nests), LTS = long-tailed shrike (n = 26 eggs from 7 nests), AK_CM = Asian koel in common myna nest (n = 5 eggs from 4 nests), AK_HC = Asian koel in house crow nest (not included) and AK_LTS = Asian koel in long-tailed shrike nest (n = 16 eggs from 4 nests). Spectral reflectance was measured at three egg regions, curves denoted by: b = blunt spectral reflectance of the egg, m = middle spectral reflectance of the egg, t = top spectral reflectance of the egg.

General methodology

Measurements of host egg volume, shape, spotting pattern and color belonging to the same nest were included with nest identity as a random intercept, to account for non-independence of eggs within a clutch. All koel eggs were treated as independent measurements, even if they came from the same host nest because multiple parasitism was common (mean ± SD number of koel eggs in house crow nests: 1.33 ± 0.48, n = 27; common myna nests: 2.55 ± 1.60, n = 89; and long-tailed shrike nests: 2.05 ± 1.00, n = 66, unpublished results). Asian koel eggs with different sizes and ground color are often found in the same nest and therefore, we regard it as highly likely that more than one parasitic female laid eggs in a single host nest at our study site.

Egg size and shape

Egg length and breadth (mm) were measured using a digital calliper. Egg volume was estimated using the following formula: V = (0.6057–0.0018B)LB², where, V = volume (mm³), B = breadth (mm) and L = length (mm) [75]. Egg shape was calculated as the ratio L/B [76].

Egg pattern

To measure egg pattern, we used digital photos of eggs. In 2015 we used a Canon EOS Kiss X5 camera with a 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens to photograph each egg placed on a 16% grey standard Kodak card. In 2016 and 2017 we used a Canon EOS 7D camera with a 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens to photograph the eggs placed on an 18% grey standard Kodak card. A tripod was used to retain a constant distance from the egg to the lens and to stabilize the camera. Common myna eggs were not included in this analysis as they are immaculate i.e. lack pattern.

All egg photos were analyzed in ImageJ [77] using the multispectral image calibration and analysis toolbox [78]. The toolbox accomplishes image calibration, confirming image linearization that regulates the lighting changes during image processing. To perform pattern analysis, standard band-pass methods on the camera’s green reflectance channel was used as this is the closest approximation of bird double cone peak sensitivities [10,42]. Pattern energy spectrums for each egg were calculated at different spatial scales ranging from 2–512 pixels and the photos were scaled to 50 pixels/millimeter.

We performed granularity analysis based on fast Fourier band-pass filtering following the updated methods of Stoddard and Stevens [79], published by Troscianko and Stevens [78]. The granularity analysis produced several variables as summary statistics, and we used four response variables in the analysis to assess variation in koel egg pattern and whether this could be attributed to egg mimicry for the three host species. Maximum energy, which corresponds to the dominant marking size on the measured egg, is the energy at the maximum frequency or dominant marking filter size. Proportion energy, the proportion of the total energy across all scales, is a measure of the diversity of pattern sizes or how much the main pattern size dominates. A high value shows that the egg pattern is dominated by the main spot size. The proportion energy is calculated by the maximum energy divided by the total energy. Total energy is the sum of the pattern energies at every scale or amplitude, measuring overall pattern contrast against the egg background color. Dispersion is measured as the standard deviation of the energy values across all scales. This measure represents the variation of marking sizes across the egg [10].

Egg color and luminance

In 2015 we measured egg color and luminance of a sample of Asian koel and host eggs using an Ocean Optics Jaz spectrophotometer, a narrow-ended UV-Vis unidirectional Ocean Optics QR400-7-SR reflectance probe with a 5 mm diameter, and an Ocean Optics WS-1 reflectance standard following the methods of Abernathy et al. [42]. We measured the spectral reflectance of eggs in the range 300–700 nm. Before measuring an egg, a dark and white standard reference was taken. Egg measurements were taken under a black cloth in the field to reduce noise from ambient light. Three measurements were taken from a random location within each of the three egg regions (blunt, middle and top) for each egg. Spectral reflectance of each egg region was attained by averaging all three measurements per region.

Due to the fact that human and avian visual systems differ significantly, avian visual modelling was used to determine the similarity of egg appearance between Asian koel and host eggs chromatically (color) and achromatically (luminance) according to the host’s visual perspective [43]. We measured the cone stimulation (photon catch) values for the violet sensitive (VS), ultraviolet sensitive (UVS), shortwave sensitive (SWS), mediumwave sensitive (MWS), longwave sensitive (LWS) and double cones (luminance) using the “pavo” package [80] in the R Statistical Package [81]. Moreover, we performed a just-noticeable-differences (JNDs) analysis, comparing the color and luminance of every Asian koel egg to every host clutch as well as Asian koel eggs from other host nests [following 82]. JND values less than 1 indicate that two eggs are indistinguishable. JND values between 1–3 indicate that the eggs are barely distinguishable in ideal lighting conditions, while the eggs should be easily distinguishable in good lighting conditions when the JNDs are more than three [83].

Birds have two distinct visual systems. Species with an ultraviolet sensitive (UVS) visual system are able to view most of the ultraviolet visual range (300–400 nm), while species with a violet sensitive (VS) visual system are only able to view part of the ultraviolet visual range (340–400 nm) [84]. Among Corvus spp. (crows) that have been tested, all have a VS visual system, while all tested Sturnidae (starling, myna, and others) species, including the common myna, have a UVS visual system [85–89]. It is unclear what the visual system of shrikes is, as some studies have found evidence for a UVS visual system [e.g. 90], while another study found evidence for a VS visual system [91]. Therefore, we analyzed all the species using both the UVS visual system of the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) and the VS visual system of the common peafowl (Pavo cristatus) [92,93].

Statistical analysis

We examined variation among Asian koel eggs from specific host nests and their host eggs using the following egg characteristics: egg volume, shape, four pattern variables, reflectance, and both achromatic and chromatic cone stimulation values and JNDs. Each egg character was fitted with a linear mixed-effects model, assessing Asian koel and host eggs separately. The egg character was used as the response variable, and egg type (categorical with 3 levels, i.e. three Asian koel egg types or three host egg types) was added as a fixed effect. Year was added with random intercepts, and for host eggs we added random intercepts for nest identity to account for non-independence. Due to some deviations from normal distribution of residuals from the linear mixed-effects models, we ran additional sets of analyses, running identical models using instead log-transformed values. The models using log-transformed values gave qualitatively similar results, thus corroborating our findings (see, S1 Table). Additionally, we ran linear mixed-effects models to examine differences between Asian koel eggs from specific host nests compared to the eggs of their host species (see, S2 and S3 Tables).

Moreover, we examined color variation in Asian koel eggs laid in long-tailed shrike and common myna nests using cone stimulation values as the response variable in linear mixed-effects models. Unfortunately, no parasitized house crow nests were found during the period when we had access to a spectrophotometer, so we were unable to collect spectral reflectance data of Asian koel eggs from house crow nests. We added egg type (categorical with two levels, Asian koel egg type, i.e. from common myna and long-tailed shrike nests) and egg region (categorical with three levels; blunt, middle, and top) as fixed effects. Random intercepts were added for egg identity to account for non-independence within the same egg. We combined both egg region and egg type together to test for differences among Asian koel eggs accounting for differences among egg regions. Finally, we examined pair-wise differences in average chromatic (color) and achromatic (luminance) JNDs (from comparisons of each Asian koel egg with the respective host clutch and also with every other host clutch) using Dunn post hoc tests. We accounted for multiple comparisons following Benjamini and Hochberg’s procedure for false discovery rate (FDR) [94] (S4 Table). All statistical analyses were carried out using the R Statistical Package v. 3.6.3 [81], linear mixed-effects models were fitted using the R-package ‘glmmTMB’ [95], and model fit was evaluated using the ‘DHARMa’-package [96].

Results

Egg volume and shape

The mean (± SD) length and breadth of the house crow, common myna and long-tailed shrike eggs were 37.33 ± 2.05 × 26.54 ± 1.15 mm, 28.39 ± 0.94 × 20.73 ± 0.98 mm and 22.85 ± 0.89 × 18.10 ± 0.54 mm, respectively. Similarly, the mean (± SD) length and breadth of Asian koel eggs laid in the house crow, common myna and long-tailed shrike nests were 29.96 ± 1.09 × 22.98 ± 0.67 mm, 30.42 ± 1.32 × 22.71 ± 1.18 mm and 31.17 ± 1.26 × 23.43 ± 0.83 mm, respectively. All Asian koel egg types were different from their corresponding host egg type in volume and shape (S2 Table). The egg volume of Asian koel eggs laid in different host nests differed significantly. However, differences did not match the egg volume of the corresponding host species (Table 1; Fig 2). Significantly larger Asian koel eggs were found in long-tailed shrike nests compared to Asian koel eggs laid in nests of the two other host species (Table 1; Fig 2). Asian koel eggs laid in house crow nests were less elongated compared to those laid in common myna nests, but that did not correspond to the egg shape of its host species (Table 1; Fig 2). Moreover, egg volume and shape differed significantly among the three host species (Table 1). The house crow eggs were significantly more elongated than the other two hosts and common myna eggs were significantly more elongated than shrike eggs (Fig 2). Altogether, small differences in volume and shape between Asian koel eggs did not correspond to the differences between their respective hosts, suggesting the absence of mimicry (Fig 2).

Table 1. Linear mixed-effects models on egg characteristics (volume, shape and spotting pattern) of Asian koel eggs and three host species (common myna, house crow and long-tailed shrike).

Egg type	n (eggs/nests)	Egg characteristic	Estimate	SE	z	P
AK_CM-AK_HC	167/58, 22/17	Volume	-90.29	239.00	-0.38	0.706
AK_CM-AK_LTS	167/58, 82/36	Volume	550.80	158.10	3.48	<0.001	***
AK_HC-AK_LTS	22/17, 82/36	Volume	641.08	261.08	2.46	0.014	*
Common Myna-House Crow¹	389/128, 304/99	Volume	7910.80	150.90	52.42	<0.001	***
Common Myna-Long-tailed Shrike¹	389/128, 213/59	Volume	-2472.20	173.80	-14.22	<0.001	***
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike¹	304/99, 213/59	Volume	-10383.00	185.80	-55.88	<0.001	***
AK_CM-AK_HC	167/58, 22/17	Shape	-0.04	0.01	-2.59	0.010	*
AK_CM-AK_LTS	167/58, 82/36	Shape	-0.01	0.01	-1.25	0.212
AK_HC-AK_LTS	22/17, 82/36	Shape	0.03	0.01	1.77	0.076
Common Myna-House Crow	389/128, 304/99	Shape	0.04	0.01	4.84	<0.001	***
Common Myna-Long-tailed Shrike	389/128, 213/59	Shape	-0.11	0.01	-11.47	<0.001	***
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike	304/99, 213/59	Shape	-0.15	0.01	-14.56	<0.001	***
AK_CM-AK_HC¹	36/16, 12/10	Max energy	96.74	60.20	1.61	0.108
AK_CM-AK_LTS¹	36/16, 32/12	Max energy	-20.35	43.87	-0.46	0.643
AK_HC-AK_LTS¹	12/10, 32/12	Max energy	-117.09	61.13	-1.92	0.055
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike	107/35, 57/17	Max energy	736.70	134.40	5.48	<0.001	***
AK_CM-AK_HC	36/16, 12/10	Prop energy	0.01	0.00	1.52	0.128
AK_CM-AK_LTS	36/16, 32/12	Prop energy	-0.00	0.00	-0.08	0.935
AK_HC-AK_LTS	12/10, 32/12	Prop energy	-0.01	0.00	-1.56	0.120
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike¹	107/35, 57/17	Prop energy	0.02	0.00	4.62	<0.001	***
AK_CM-AK_HC¹	36/16, 12/10	Sum energy	783.30	546.10	1.43	0.152
AK_CM-AK_LTS¹	36/16, 32/12	Sum energy	-211.50	398.10	-0.53	0.595
AK_HC-AK_LTS¹	12/10, 32/12	Sum energy	-994.80	554.60	-1.79	0.073
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike	107/35, 57/17	Sum energy	3618.8.80	986.20	3.67	<0.001	***
AK_CM-AK_HC¹	36/16, 12/10	SD energy	17.99	16.55	1.09	0.277
AK_CM-AK_LTS¹	36/16, 32/12	SD energy	-9.47	12.06	-0.79	0.433
AK_HC-AK_LTS¹	12/10, 32/12	SD energy	-27.45	16.81	-1.63	0.102
House Crow-Long-tailed Shrike	107/35, 57/17	SD energy	210.74	35.91	5.87	<0.001	***

Open in a new tab

¹Residuals deviating from normal distribution.

AK_CM = Asian koel in common myna nests, AK_HC = Asian koel in house crow nests and AK_LTS = Asian koel in long-tailed shrike nests, and each host respectively. Asian koel eggs and host eggs were analyzed in separate models. For identical models run on log-transformed values, see S1 Table.

Fig 2 — Asterisks denotes significant difference among Asian koel eggs and host eggs (see Table 1; N.S. p > 0.05, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Host and Asian koel eggs were analyzed separately. Vertical bars depict the 95% confidence interval.

Egg pattern variables

Asian koel and host egg types differed significantly in three out of four egg pattern characteristics, where only in the proportion energy we did not find any difference between Asian koel eggs in house crow nests and house crow eggs (S2 Table). There were no differences in either of the four pattern variables among Asian koel eggs in different host nests (Table 1, Fig 3). Running identical models using log-transformed values, improving normality of residuals from each model, corroborated the analyses using non-transformed values. Analyses on log-transformed values showed larger maximum energy for Asian koel eggs in house crow nests than Asian koel eggs in common myna nests (S1 Table; Fig 3). Asian koel eggs in house crow nests showed larger dispersion than Asian koel eggs from long-tailed shrike nests (S1 Table; Fig 3). However, none of these differences remained significant when using non-transformed values (Fig 3). In contrast to Asian koel eggs, host eggs of house crow and long-tailed shrike differed significantly in all pattern variables (Fig 3).

Fig 3 — Asterisks denotes significant difference between Asian koels and hosts, respectively, based on linear-mixed effects model outputs (see Table 1; N.S. p > 0.05, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Tests of Asian koel and hosts eggs were performed separately. Vertical bars depict the 95% confidence interval. ¹Significant only after log-transformation (see S1 Table).

Eggshell reflectance and color

The mean spectral reflectance of Asian koel eggs from common myna and long-tailed shrike nests did not appear to resemble the reflectance of any of the hosts (Fig 1). The JND analysis showed that Asian koel eggs from different host nests were barely distinguishable (JNDs = 1–3) from one another in both chromatic and achromatic JNDs for both a UVS and VS visual system (Figs 4 and 5). However, Asian koel eggs were easily distinguishable (JNDs > 3) from common myna and house crow eggs in good lighting conditions for both visual systems, but were not easily distinguishable (JNDs = 1–3) from long-tailed shrike eggs in all egg regions for chromatic JNDs in the VS system (Figs 4 and 5). Asian koel eggs laid in common myna and long-tailed shrike nests did not differ significantly in any of cone stimulation values for color or luminance cones for either the UVS or VS visual system models (Table 2). All regions of Asian koel eggs were significantly different from each other (except for the ultraviolet cone in the UVS system, where the blunt and middle region were not statistically different; Table 2). Altogether, these results suggest little resemblance between Asian koel and host eggs in color, and we thus find little evidence for mimicry in this host-parasite system.

Fig 4 — Achromatic (Achrom_JND) and chromatic (Chrom_JND) analyses were performed for egg regions (B = blunt, M = middle, T = top) and visual system (UVS = ultraviolet-sensitive, VS = violet-sensitive) separately. Letters above columns denote significant differences (Dunn post-hoc test, p < 0.05 after correcting for multiple tests following Benjamini and Hochberg 1995 [94], see S4 Table).

Fig 5 — Achromatic (Achrom_JND) and chromatic (Chrom_JND) analyses were performed for each egg region (B = blunt, M = middle, T = top) and visual system (UVS = ultraviolet-sensitive, VS = violet-sensitive), separately. Letters above columns denote significant differences (Dunn post-hoc test, p < 0.05 after accounting for multiple tests following Benjamini and Hochberg 1995 [94], see supplement for tests S4 Table).

Table 2. Linear mixed effects model using cone stimulation values of Asian koel eggs as response, and host species (common myna and long-tailed shrike) and in different egg regions (blunt, middle, top) as fixed effects.

Visual system	Egg type and region	Cone stimulation type	Estimate	SE	Df	t	P
UVS	AK_CM-AK_LTS	U	0.002	0.003	19	0.90	0.367
	Blunt-Middle	U	0.002	0.002	40	0.98	0.329
	Blunt-Top	U	0.014	0.002	40	8.76	<0.001
	Middle-Top	U	0.012	0.002	40	7.78	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	S	-0.004	0.011	19	-0.39	0.694
	Blunt-Middle	S	0.015	0.005	40	2.93	0.003
	Blunt-Top	S	0.046	0.005	40	9.01	<0.001
	Middle-Top	S	0.031	0.005	40	6.07	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	M	-0.004	0.011	19	-0.37	0.712
	Blunt-Middle	M	0.019	0.006	40	3.24	0.001
	Blunt-Top	M	0.056	0.006	40	9.47	<0.001
	Middle-Top	M	0.037	0.006	40	6.23	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	L	-0.002	0.006	19	-0.33	0.741
	Blunt-Middle	L	0.010	0.004	40	2.43	0.015
	Blunt-Top	L	0.034	0.004	40	8.68	<0.001
	Middle-Top	L	0.025	0.004	40	6.26	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	Luminance	-0.003	0.008	19	-0.37	0.709
	Blunt-Middle	Luminance	0.015	0.005	40	3.05	0.002
	Blunt-Top	Luminance	0.047	0.005	40	9.38	<0.001
	Middle-Top	Luminance	0.032	0.005	40	6.33	<0.001
VS	AK_CM-AK_LTS	V	-0.002	0.006	19	-0.41	0.680
	Blunt-Middle	V	0.007	0.003	40	2.53	0.012
	Blunt-Top	V	0.028	0.003	40	9.32	<0.001
	Middle-Top	V	0.020	0.003	40	6.80	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	S	-0.004	0.013	19	-0.33	0.743
	Blunt-Middle	S	0.019	0.006	40	3.09	0.002
	Blunt-Top	S	0.055	0.006	40	9.02	<0.001
	Middle-Top	S	0.036	0.006	40	5.93	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	M	-0.004	0.011	19	-0.38	0.708
	Blunt-Middle	M	0.019	0.006	40	3.24	0.001
	Blunt-Top	M	0.055	0.006	40	9.47	<0.001
	Middle-Top	M	0.036	0.006	40	6.24	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	L	-0.002	0.006	19	-0.34	0.735
	Blunt-Middle	L	0.010	0.004	40	2.45	0.014
	Blunt-Top	L	0.035	0.004	40	8.71	<0.001
	Middle-Top	L	0.025	0.004	40	6.26	<0.001
	AK_CM-AK_LTS	Luminance	-0.003	0.009	19	-0.39	0.700
	Blunt-Middle	Luminance	0.016	0.005	40	3.07	0.002
	Blunt-Top	Luminance	0.048	0.005	40	9.37	<0.001
	Middle-Top	Luminance	0.033	0.005	40	6.30	<0.001

Open in a new tab

AK_CM = Asian koel eggs in common myna nests, AK_LTS = Asian koel eggs in long-tailed shrike nests, U = ultraviolet-sensitive, V = violet-sensitive, S = shortwave-sensitive, M = mediumwave-sensitive, L = longwave-sensitive. UVS/VS = Ultraviolet or violet sensitive visual system.

Discussion

We investigated different egg parameters, including egg volume, shape, spotting pattern and color (using avian visual modelling) to examine Asian koel host-specific egg mimicry. Our results revealed that there were only a few differences between Asian koel eggs laid in different host nests in egg volume and shape, and no differences in egg spotting pattern variables or color. In contrast, we found large variation among host eggs when examining the same egg characteristics. Comparisons to host egg variation further suggest that the small variation among Asian koel eggs was unlikely to comprise mimicry of host eggs.

Due to the natural selection in host-specific co-evolutionary adaptations (i.e. arms race), the parasite egg morphology may converge to the host egg morphology, changing egg morphology away from the ancestral morphology of the parasite egg. The most closely related species of the Asian koel, the Pacific koel, lays eggs that are pinkish but sparingly spotted and blotched, especially on the blunt end with chestnut and purplish brown [42]. This egg morph is distinctly different from the Asian koel eggs. A previous study revealed that Pacific koels evolved egg mimicry of one of the main hosts, the noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus), which allowed the Pacific koel to exploit new hosts with similar egg morphologies [42]. Asian koel eggs were previously believed to be mimetic to house crow eggs, but the present study did not find any support for this. Further studies on a regional basis are needed to investigate in more detail if Asian koel egg morphs vary according to host use throughout Asia. Altogether we did not find evidence of egg mimicry in the present study, which may be a result of a lack of rejection response to Asian koel eggs among the three hosts studied, and/or potential absence of host-specific parasitism. The variation of Asian koel eggs in some egg traits is probably due to individual genetic differences in the Asian koel population or possibly due to the Asian koel mating system. Unfortunately, we do not possess any molecular data, which might help to explain the results. Future genetic analyses or telemetry studies may reveal more information about the source of the variation found between Asian koel eggs.

However, it is possible that the observed variation of Asian koel eggs may be a result of predation rather than parasitism (i.e. eggs have evolved to become cryptic rather than mimetic). Recent studies have found that house crows that lay immaculate blue eggs had higher (75%, n = 4) nest predation (sample size too small to be tested statistically) than regular crow eggs with a bluish-green ground color and black or brown blotches (28.3%, n = 60) [73]. In addition, the house crow is a poor egg rejecter and Asian koel and house crow eggs only matched in one pattern variable, proportion energy. Therefore, the selective force behind the apparent resemblance of Asian koel and crow eggs could be due to nest predation instead of crow egg rejection, but this needs more investigation, and the support for the influence of predation on the evolution of parasitic eggs is quite scarce [9,97,98].

Imperfect adaptation in terms of host egg discrimination and cuckoo egg mimicry are often a result of time lag in the evolution of traits [evolutionary lag hypothesis, see 2, 6, 99], occurrence of recognition errors and rejection costs [evolutionary equilibrium hypothesis, see 34, 100, 101] or absence of a later line defense when the prior line defense is successful [strategy blocking hypothesis, see 102, 103]. The house crow was cited as a host in 370 A.D [1,59], but still displays poor egg discrimination behavior, providing low support for the evolutionary lag hypothesis [69]. Shrikes might accept foreign eggs due to rejection costs, if there is a risk of breaking their own eggs while trying to reject the larger Asian koel eggs. We sometimes observed damaged host eggs in parasitized clutches, however, it is also possible that the host egg damage was caused by the Asian koel during egg laying [laying damage hypothesis, 104, 105]. Furthermore, there is currently no information on how hosts would respond to adult Asian koel encounters by the nest or whether Asian koel chicks are discriminated in the nest. Although, no mobbing behavior towards adult Asian koel was observed, nor any discrimination against Asian koel chicks recorded during the study, thorough experiments would be needed to properly test the strategy blocking hypothesis [102,103].

Another possible explanation for the lack of mimicry of host eggs by Asian koels is that host tolerance of Asian koel eggs could relax selection for egg mimicry [103,106–108], however, this implies stronger egg rejection in the past or in other hosts. It is possible that hosts of the Asian koel can minimize the cost of parasitism by adjusting some life history or reproductive traits, such as increasing or decreasing clutch size, raising multiple broods in a breeding season, providing more maternal investment to their own eggs, or accelerating their own nestling development [106,107]. Tolerance of parasitic eggs can be adaptive when a brood parasite is less virulent, like the non-evicting Asian koel [103]. However, there is no information on whether host tolerance exists in hosts of the Asian koel, so future studies must be conducted on this type of host defense.

The Asian koel eggs seemed to match common myna eggs slightly better than the two other hosts in both egg volume and shape, although they are still significantly different from their host in these parameters (see, S2 Table). Additionally, Asian koel eggs are spotted, while common myna eggs are immaculate. It is likely that the closer matching of Asian koel eggs with common myna eggs in volume and shape has occurred by chance, as there is little evidence of selection for mimicry by mynas; they routinely accept Asian koel eggs and show poor discrimination of blue and brown model eggs [69]. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that Asian koels have evolved cryptic eggs in common myna nests. Some brood parasites lay cryptic eggs instead of mimetic eggs in dark, domed nests, which makes it difficult for the host to recognize the parasite eggs in the nest [52–54]. As mentioned previously, common myna nests often have poor lighting conditions due to nest structure and position (domed nests or placed inside holes or cavities). It is therefore possible that the closer matching of common myna and host-specific Asian koel eggs in egg volume, shape and grey-bluish egg color with numerous brown and black spots of Asian koel eggs in dim light conditions may be an adaptation of the Asian koel that increases acceptance of their eggs by the host. Recent visual modeling techniques revealed that immaculate, matt dark olive or brown eggs are difficult to detect by hosts in darker domed nests [53,109]. Hosts with dark nest interiors typically discriminate against foreign eggs using egg size and shape as cues [18,19,22,110,111, but see 112,113]. Moreover, cryptic eggs can be an advantage when multiple parasitism by different parasitic females is common, like at our study site, if female parasites remove host or other parasitic eggs while depositing their own egg [27,52,54]. While there is no information about whether Asian koel females selectively remove other cuckoo rather than host eggs from a nest during egg laying, this behavior has been shown to occur in greater honeyguides (Indicator indicator) [114] and little bronze-cuckoos (Chrysococcyx minutillus) [52], but not in common cuckoos [115].

Spotting pattern of Asian koel eggs laid in different host nests show general similarities in maximum energy, proportion energy, total energy and dispersion. Among the host species, the common myna lays immaculate blue eggs, which appear different from Asian koel eggs in pattern to the human eye. Although the general assumption is that Asian koels are mimicking crow eggs [57,58,66], we found no support for this assumption. This finding is not surprising, given that poor rejection rates of immaculate blue and brown model eggs by the house crow suggest that the host may not discriminate against foreign eggs well based on color or spotting and, thus, there is probably either no or limited selection pressure on the Asian koel to mimic crow eggs [see 69].

In our avian visual models for the egg color analysis, we found no significant differences between Asian koel eggs laid in common myna and long-tailed shrike nests and we did not have any egg color data of Asian koel eggs laid in house crow nests. However, we did find that the color of the egg regions of Asian koel eggs differed significantly. The JND and cone simulation analyses of Asian koel and host eggs suggest that the Asian koel has not evolved host-specific egg colors.

Among the three host species, the house crow laid the largest eggs, while the long-tailed shrike laid the smallest eggs, but the largest Asian koel eggs were found in long-tailed shrike nests. Host egg discrimination behavior drives selection on cuckoos to evolve host egg mimicry [6,9,30,79], thus, any ongoing selection for the evolution of egg volume should not have resulted in the largest Asian koel eggs being laid in long-tailed shrike nests. Using immaculate blue and brown model eggs, Begum et al. [69] showed that house crows reject only 9.1% (n = 2 out of 22) of model eggs, common mynas reject 0% of model eggs (n = 0 out of 22), and long-tailed shrikes reject 75% (n = 15 out of 20) of model eggs. Thus, shrikes appear to be capable of rejecting odd eggs, but they regularly accept Asian koel eggs [69]. One explanation may be that it is difficult for shrikes to grasp and eject the larger Asian koel eggs (31.17 mm ± 1.26 SD) compared to the model eggs used by Begum et al. [69] (24.96 mm ± 19.29 SD). Alternatively, long-tailed shrikes may be able to puncture and eject the Asian koel eggs when it is difficult to grasp and eject. However, we did not find any punctured or broken Asian koel eggs in and around long-tailed shrike nests. Future study with video recordings may confirm shrike responses to Asian koel eggs. Moreover, in theory, if shrikes can detect Asian koel eggs, they might benefit by abandoning the parasitized clutch and starting a new brood, as parasitism reduces shrike reproductive success [57]. However, since Asian koels are non-evictors and nest predation is high at our study site (50.8% of shrike nests were predated, [71]), the benefits of accepting the Asian koel egg might outweigh the costs, since they are sometimes able to raise their own young with an Asian koel nestling. It may therefore be better for the host to do the “best of a bad job” and accept reduced reproductive output (i.e. lower number of chicks produced in parasitized than non-parasitized nests), rather than risking all reproductive output in a second brooding attempt in which there is a high probability that the nest will be predated.

Conclusion

We found few differences between Asian koel eggs laid in different host species’ nests in egg volume, shape, pattern variables and color. Importantly, the consistent differences among Asian koel eggs in size and shape did not match the corresponding host species, thus we found no evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in the three host species studied. Potential causes might include that these host species show poor rejection behavior, or that the Asian koel may not be host specific. The underlying mechanisms for the lack of egg mimicry need further investigation.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Linear mixed effects model using log-transformed egg characteristics as response (log(volume), log(shape) and log pattern variables), for Asian koel eggs and three host species (common myna, house crow and long-tailed shrike).

Asian koel eggs and host eggs were assessed separately, and host egg were accounted for non-independence. AK_CM = Asian koel in common myna nests, AK_HC = Asian koel in house crow nests and AK_LTS = Asian koel in long-tailed shrike nests.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Model outputs from linear mixed-effects models showing differences between Asian koel eggs from specific host nests and their corresponding host eggs (see Figs 2 and 3).

Each egg characteristic was used as response, and koel vs. host as a fixed factor.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.8KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Model outputs from linear mixed-effects models showing differences between Asian koel eggs from specific host nests and their corresponding host eggs (see Figs 2 and 3).

Log-transformed values of egg characteristic was used as response, and koel vs. host as a fixed factor, to improve normality of residuals (see, S2 Table).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.5KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Model outputs from Dunn post host tests, showing pair-wise comparisons of differences in JNDs between Asian koel eggs in common myna nests (egg = AK_CM) and long-tailed shrike nests (egg = AK_LTS).

P-values were adjusted (P.adj.) following Benjamini and Hochberg. Significant differences are denoted with letters in Figs 4 and 5.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(43KB, docx)}

S1 Data. Data file for egg volume and shape.

Egg morphology data comprising data from Asian koel, and three host species. Length and breadth in mm. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Year: 2008–2013 and 2015–2017.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(293.4KB, csv)}

S2 Data. Data file for egg spotting pattern.

Egg pattern data comprising data from Asian koel, and three host species. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015–2017.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(41.7KB, csv)}

S3 Data. Data file for egg spectral reflectance.

Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(234.2KB, xlsx)}

S4 Data. Data file for Just Noticeable Differences (JNDs).

Asian koel eggs from common myna nests, compared to three host species, and Asian koel eggs from long-tailed shrike nests. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3KB, csv)}

S5 Data. Data file for Just Noticeable Differences (JNDs).

Asian koel eggs from long-tailed shrike nests, compared to three host species, and Asian koel eggs from common myna nests. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3KB, csv)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Monoronjon Baroi and Mr. Yousuf for their great help with the data collection in the field. We also thank the editor Petr Heneberg and John M. Eadie and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that significantly improved the manuscript. We acknowledge Jolyon Troscianko for his advice on the egg pattern analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The study was funded by grants through ‘Quota Scheme’ at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), from NTNU, Department of Biology to Professor Eivin Røskaft, an Australian National University travel grant to Virginia Abernathy and Research Council of Norway (Centre of Excellence Grant 223257) to Peter S. Ranke. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Davies NB. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. London: T. & AD Poyser; 2000. [Google Scholar]
2.Rothstein SI. A model system for coevolution - avian brood parasitism. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1990; 21: 481–508. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.002405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Davies NB. Cuckoo: cheating by nature: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar]
4.Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Honza M. Costs of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism to reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. J Avian Biol. 1998; 29: 209–215. doi: 10.2307/3677102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Soler M. Avian Brood Parasitism: Behaviour, Ecology, Evolution and Coevolution. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. [Google Scholar]
6.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, cuculus canorus, and its hosts.1. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol. 1989; 58(1): 207–224. doi: 10.2307/4995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Moksnes A, Eivin R, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour. 1990; 116(1): 64–89. [Google Scholar]
8.Avilés JM, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, et al. Avian colour perception predicts behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism in chaffinches. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(2): 293–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01898.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Brooke MdL, Davies NB. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature. 1988; 335(6191): 630. doi: 10.1038/335630a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2010; 107(19): 8672–8676. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910486107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Stoddard MC, Stevens M. Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution. 2011; 65(7): 2004–2013. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01262.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Honza M. Rejection of artificial cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs in relation to variation in egg appearance among reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus). Proc R Soc B. 1999; 266(1427): 1483–1488. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Obligate brood parasites as selective agents for evolution of egg appearance in passerine birds. Evolution. 2002; 56(1): 199–205. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00861.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Stoddard MC, Kilner RM, Town C. Pattern recognition algorithm reveals how birds evolve individual egg pattern signatures. Nat Commun. 2014; 5: 4117. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Abernathy VE, Peer BD. Mechanisms of egg recognition in brown-headed cowbird hosts: the role of ultraviolet reflectance. Anim Behav. 2015; 109: 73–79. [Google Scholar]
16.Honza M, Polačiková L. Experimental reduction of ultraviolet wavelengths reflected from parasitic eggs affects rejection behaviour in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. J Exp Biol. 2008; 211(15): 2519–2523. doi: 10.1242/jeb.017327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Honza M, Polačiková L, Procházka P. Ultraviolet and green parts of the colour spectrum affect egg rejection in the song thrush (Turdus philomelos). Biol J Linnean Soc. 2007; 92(2): 269–276. [Google Scholar]
18.Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature. 2003; 422(6928): 157. doi: 10.1038/nature01460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Marchetti K. Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim Behav. 2000; 59(4): 877–883. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Responses of some rare cuckoo hosts to mimetic model cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand. 1992; 23(1): 17–23. doi: 10.2307/3676422 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Egg rejection in marsh warblers (Acrocephalus palustris) heavily parasitized by common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). The Auk. 2006; 123(2): 419–430. doi: 10.1093/auk/123.2.419 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Mason P, Rothstein SI. Coevolution and avian brood parasitism: cowbird eggs show evolutionary response to host discrimination. Evolution. 1986; 40(6): 1207–1214. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05745.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Zölei A, Hauber ME, Geltsch N, Moskát C. Asymmetrical signal content of egg shape as predictor of egg rejection by great reed warblers, hosts of the common cuckoo. Behaviour. 2012; 149(3–4): 391–406. doi: 10.1163/156853912X638445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Attard MRG, Medina I, Langmore NE, Sherratt E. Egg shape mimicry in parasitic cuckoos. J Evol Biol. 2017; 30(11): 2079–2084. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Taylor CJ, Langmore NE. How do brood-parasitic cuckoos reconcile conflicting environmental and host selection pressures on egg size investment? Anim Behav. 2020; 168: 89–96. [Google Scholar]
26.Lahti DC, Lahti AR. How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Anim Behav. 2002; 63(6): 1135–1142. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Stokke BG, Fossøy F, Røskaft E, Moksnes A. Adaptations of Brood Parasitic Eggs. In: Soler M, editor. Avian Brood Parasitism: Springer; 2017. p. 363–384. [Google Scholar]
28.Feeney WE, Welbergen JA, Langmore NE. Advances in the study of coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 2014; 45: 227–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, cuculus canorus, and its hosts.2. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol. 1989; 58(1): 225–236. doi: 10.2307/4996 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Egg-morphs and host preference in the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool. 1995; 236(4): 625–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02736.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. First evidence of regular common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, parasitism on eastern olivaceous warblers, Hippolais pallida elaeica. Naturwissenschaften. 2007; 94(4): 307–312. doi: 10.1007/s00114-006-0189-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Moskát C, Honza M. The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos. Behav Ecol. 2002; 13(2): 163–168. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.2.163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Røskaft E, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Stokke BG. Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defenses against brood parasitism. Behav Ecol. 2006; 17(5): 700–708. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ark019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithol Sci. 2005; 4(1): 17–29. doi: 10.2326/osj.4.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Drobniak SM, Dyrcz A, Sudyka J, Cichoń M. Continuous variation rather than specialization in the egg phenotypes of cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) parasitizing two sympatric reed warbler species. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(9): e106650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Edvardsen E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Øien IJ, Honza M. Egg mimicry in cuckoos parasitizing four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. The Condor. 2001; 103(4): 829–837. doi: 10.1093/condor/103.4.829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Ranke PS, Røskaft E, et al. Egg phenotype differentiation in sympatric cuckoo Cuculus canorus gentes. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(6): 1170–1182. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01982.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Møller AP. Environmental conditions influence egg color of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and their parasite, the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007; 61(3): 475–485. doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0275-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.Medina I, Langmore NE. The evolution of host specialisation in avian brood parasites. Ecol Let. 2016; 19(9): 1110–1118. doi: 10.1111/ele.12649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Vikan JR, Møller AP, et al. Genetic differentiation among sympatric cuckoo host races: males matter. Proc R Soc B. 2011; 278(1712): 1639–1645. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke MdL, Davies NB, Nakamura H. Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the common cuckoo. Nature. 2000; 407(6801): 183. doi: 10.1038/35025058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Abernathy VE, Troscianko J, Langmore NE. Egg mimicry by the pacific koel: mimicry of one host facilitates exploitation of other hosts with similar egg types. J Avian Biol. 2017; 48(11): 1414–1424. doi: 10.1111/jav.01530 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Feeney WE, Stoddard MC, Kilner RM, Langmore NE. “Jack-of-all-trades” egg mimicry in the brood parasitic Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo? Behav Ecol. 2014; 25(6): 1365–1373. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, et al. Behaviour of female common cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav. 2002; 64(6): 861–868. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.1969 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Skjelseth S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Gibbs HL, Taborsky M, Taborsky B, et al. Parentage and host preference in the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. J Avian Biol. 2004; 35(1): 21–24. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03219.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46.Peer BD, Sealy SG. Correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird. The Condor. 2004; 106(3): 580–599. doi: 10.1093/condor/106.3.580 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasitism. An overview. Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
48.Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Norris KJ. Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. Am Nat. 1994; 144(5): 848–860. doi: 10.1086/285711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Cherry MI, Bennett ATD. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc B. 2001; 268(1467): 565. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Starling M, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A, Langmore NE. Cryptic gentes revealed in pallid cuckoos Cuculus pallidus using reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc B. 2006; 273(1596): 1929–1934. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Soler JJ, Avilés JM, Soler M, Møller AP. Evolution of host egg mimicry in a brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2003; 79(4): 551–563. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00209.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52.Gloag R, Keller L-A, Langmore NE. Cryptic cuckoo eggs hide from competing cuckoos. Proc R Soc B. 2014; 281(1792): 20141014. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Kilner RM. Are dark cuckoo eggs cryptic in host nests? Anim Behav. 2009; 78(2): 461–468. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
54.Thorogood R, Kilner RM, Rasmussen JL. Grey Gerygone hosts are not egg rejecters, but Shining Bronze-Cuckoos lay cryptic eggs. The Auk. 2017; 134(2): 340–349. doi: 10.1642/AUK-16-128.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
55.Erritzøe J, Mann CF, Brammer FP, Fuller RA. Cuckoos of the world. London: Bloomsbury (Christopher Helm); 2012. [Google Scholar]
56.Payne RB. Cuckoos. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
57.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Interactions between the Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) and its hosts. Behaviour. 2011; 148(3): 325–340. doi: 10.1163/000579511X558400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
58.Ali S, Ripley SD. Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Compact edition. Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
59.Friedmann H. The history of our knowledge of avian brood parasitism. Centaurus. 1964; 10(4): 282–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0498.1965.tb00628.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Payne R, Kirwan GM. Western Koel (Eudynamys scolopaceus). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2019. [Google Scholar]
61.Mann CF. A Taxonomic Review of Obligate and Facultative Interspecific Avian Brood Parasitism. In: Soler M, editor. Avian Brood Parasitism: Springer; 2017. p. 61–92. [Google Scholar]
62.Langmore NE, Spottiswoode CN. Visual trickery in avian brood parasites. In: Hughes DP, Brodeur J, Thomas F, editors. Host manipulation by parasites. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 95–118. [Google Scholar]
63.Ali H, Hasan SA, Rana SA, Beg MA, Hassan MM. Brood parasitism of Asian Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) on the House Crow (Corvus splendens) in Pothwar region of Pakistan. Pak J Ari Sci. 2007; 44(4): 627–634. [Google Scholar]
64.Baker ECS. The Oology of Indian Parasitic Cuckoos. Part III. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1906; 17(3): 678–696. [Google Scholar]
65.Dewar D. An inquiry into the parasitic habits of the Indian koel. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1907; 17(3): 765–782. [Google Scholar]
66.Lamba BS. The Indian crows: a contribution to their breeding biology, with notes on brood parasitism on them by the Indian koel. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. 1976; 71: 183–300. [Google Scholar]
67.Brooker MG, Brooker LC. Cuckoo hosts in Australia. Australian Zoological Reviews. 1989; 2: 1–67. [Google Scholar]
68.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Factors influencing host nest use by the brood parasitic Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopacea). J Ornithol. 2011; 152(3): 793–800. doi: 10.1007/s10336-011-0652-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
69.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Responses of potential hosts of Asian cuckoos to experimental parasitism. Ibis. 2012; 154(2): 363–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2012.01213.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
70.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Begum S, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. First record of Common Tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius) parasitism by Plaintive Cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus) in Bangladesh. Avian Res. 2016; 7(1): 14. doi: 10.1186/s40657-016-0049-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
71.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Stokke BG, Begum S, Røskaft E, Ranke PS. How does human disturbance affect brood parasitism and nest predation in hosts inhabiting a highly fragmented landscape? Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020; 24: e01295. [Google Scholar]
72.Madge S. House Crow (Corvus splendens). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. 14. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2018. [Google Scholar]
73.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Stokke BG, Begum S, Røskaft E. Confirmation of House Crows Corvus splendens laying immaculate blue eggs. Bird Study. 2019; 66(1): 141–144. doi: 10.1080/00063657.2018.1563047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
74.Lamba BS. The nidification of some common Indian birds - Part I. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1963; 60: 121–133. [Google Scholar]
75.Narushin VG. Egg geometry calculation using the measurements of length and breadth. Poult Sci. 2005; 84(3): 482–484. doi: 10.1093/ps/84.3.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Picman J. Mechanism of increased puncture resistance of eggs of brown-headed cowbirds. The Auk. 1989; 106(4): 577–583. [Google Scholar]
77.Rasband WS. Image J. - National Institute of Health, Bethesda, US, <http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/>. 1997–2014.
78.Troscianko J, Stevens M. Image calibration and analysis toolbox–a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour and pattern. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015; 6(11): 1320–1331. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Stoddard MC, Stevens M. Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird’s eye. Proc R Soc B. 2010; 277(1686): 1387–1393. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton PP, Doucet SM, Shawkey MD. pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013; 4(10): 906–913. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.RCoreTeam. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020.
82.Vorobyev M, Osorio D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc B. 1998; 265(1394): 351–358. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K. Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol. 2004; 207(14): 2471–2485. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Cuthill IC. Color perception. In: Hill G, McGraw K, editors. Bird coloration: mechanisms and measurements. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2006. p. 3–40. [Google Scholar]
85.Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC. Visual pigments, oil droplets and cone photoreceptor distribution in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Exp Biol. 1998; 201(9): 1433–1446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86.Håstad O, Ödeen A. Different ranking of avian colors predicted by modeling of retinal function in humans and birds. Am Nat. 2008; 171(6): 831–838. doi: 10.1086/587529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87.Ödeen A, Håstad O. Complex distribution of avian color vision systems revealed by sequencing the SWS1 opsin from total DNA. Mol Biol Evol. 2003; 20(6): 855–861. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msg108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88.Ödeen A, Håstad O, Alström P. Evolution of ultraviolet vision in the largest avian radiation-the passerines. BMC Evol Biol. 2011; 11(1): 313. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89.Ödeen A, Hart NS, Håstad O. Assessing the use of genomic DNA as a predictor of the maximum absorbance wavelength of avian SWS1 opsin visual pigments. J Comp Physiol A. 2009; 195(2): 167–173. doi: 10.1007/s00359-008-0395-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90.Avilés JM, Soler JJ. Nestling coloration is adjusted to parent visual performance in altricial birds irrespective of assumptions on vision system for Laniidae and owls, a reply to Renoult et al. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(1): 226–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01890.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91.Renoult JP, Courtiol A, Kjellberg F. When assumptions on visual system evolution matter: nestling colouration and parental visual performance in birds. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(1): 220–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01885.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92.Hart NS, Hunt DM. Avian visual pigments: characteristics, spectral tuning, and evolution. Am Nat. 2007; 169(S1): S7–S26. doi: 10.1086/510141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93.Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD. Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J Comp Physiol A. 2000; 186(4): 375–387. doi: 10.1007/s003590050437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological). 1995; 57(1): 289–300. [Google Scholar]
95.Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R journal. 2017; 9(2): 378–400. doi: 10.3929/ethz-b-000240890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
96.Hartig F. HARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.3.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa 2020.
97.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav. 1988; 36(1): 262–284. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80269-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
98.Mason P, Rothstein SI. Crypsis versus mimicry and the color of shiny cowbird eggs. Am Nat. 1987; 130(2): 161–167. doi: 10.1086/284703 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
99.Dawkins R, Krebs JR. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc B. 1979; 205(1161): 489–511. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100.Takasu F. Why do all host species not show defense against avian brood parasitism: evolutionary lag or equilibrium? Am Nat. 1998; 151(2): 193–205. doi: 10.1086/286111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101.Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol. 1992; 3(2): 128–132. doi: 10.1093/beheco/3.2.128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
102.Grim T, Samaš P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, et al. Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol. 2011; 80(3): 508–518. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103.Medina I, Langmore NE. The evolution of acceptance and tolerance in hosts of avian brood parasites. Biol Rev. 2016; 91(3): 569–577. doi: 10.1111/brv.12181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104.Soler M, Soler JJ, Martinez JG. Great spotted cuckoos improve their reproductive success by damaging magpie host eggs. Anim Behav. 1997; 54(5): 1227–1233. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105.Soler M, Martínez JG. Is egg-damaging behavior by great spotted cuckoos an accident or an adaptation? Behav Ecol. 2000; 11(5): 495–501. doi: 10.1093/beheco/11.5.495 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
106.Avilés JM. Can hosts tolerate avian brood parasites? An appraisal of mechanisms. Behav Ecol. 2018; 29(3): 509–519. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arx150 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
107.Soler JJ, Soler M. Evolutionary change: facultative virulence by brood parasites and tolerance and plastic resistance by hosts. Anim Behav. 2017; 125: 101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
108.Svensson EI, Råberg L. Resistance and tolerance in animal enemy–victim coevolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010; 25(5): 267–274. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109.Kilner RM, Langmore NE. Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations, counter-adaptations and outcomes. Biol Rev. 2011; 86(4): 836–852. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00173.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110.Alvarez F, de Reyna LA, Segura M. Experimental brood parasitism of the magpie (Pica pica). Anim Behav. 1976; 24(4): 907–916. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80021-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
111.Marchetti K. Costs to host defence and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. Proc R Soc B. 1992; 248(1321): 41–45. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1992.0040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112.Meshcheryagina SG, Golovatin MG, Bachurin GN. Experimental study of discrimination behavior in the yellow-browed warbler (Phylloscopus inornatus) brood-parasitized by the oriental cuckoo (Cuculus (saturatus) optatus). Russ J Ecol. 2016; 47(1): 104–106. doi: 10.1134/S1067413616010082 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
113.Lawes MJ, Kirkman S. Egg recognition and interspecific brood parasitism rates in red bishops (Aves: Ploceidae). Anim Behav. 1996; 52(3): 553–563. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0197 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
114.Spottiswoode CN. A brood parasite selects for its own egg traits. Biol Lett. 2013; 9(5): 20130573. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115.Šulc M, Procházka P, Capek M, Honza M. Common cuckoo females are not choosy when removing an egg during parasitism. Behav Ecol. 2016; 27(6): 1642–1649. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0253985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985.r001

Author response to previous submission

12 Feb 2021

Attachment

Submitted filename: Nahid et al_Response to reviewer_For Resubmission2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985.r002

Decision Letter 0

Petr Heneberg

27 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-04869

No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels Eudynamys scolopaceus

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nahid,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/Funding Section of your manuscript:

The study was funded by grants through ‘Quota Scheme’ at Norwegian University of Science

and Technology (NTNU), from NTNU, Department of Biology to Professor Eivin Røskaft and

an Australian National University travel grant to Virginia Abernathy. The funders had no role in

study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments on PONE-D-21-04869

Title: No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels Eudynamys scolopaceus

In my opinion, this manuscript was well written and made a good contribution to research area of avian brood parasitism.

Thus I have only very minor comments.

1. title:

I suggest “No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels” as title, as most titles do not necessarily have a Latin name.

2. L80:

delete [Nahid et al submitted,], as [56] is ok.

The same as L125-126.

3. L81:

Delete “and may be the first brood parasite mentioned in ancient literature, as it” and changed to “which was documented…”

4. L93:

Pacific koel; and check throughout your text for this.

5. L94-95:

Please use “Asian koels” throughout your text.

6. L275, 330:

Table 1 and 2 should be in three-line tables.

7. L385-386:

In addition to ref. 104-106, here, Yang et al. (2020) should be cited.

8. L450-453:

Please use “see”, not “see-”

9. L478:

What about “Md.”? Perhaps Md. Yousuf should follow “Monoronjon Baroi”

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors test whether the Asian koel has evolved host-specific egg mimicry in three common host species. They combined several methods to evaluate mimicry, including measurements of egg size and shape, egg spotting patterns, and egg color and luminance using spectrophotometry and modeling on both UVS and VS avian visual systems. They did find significant differences in Asian koel eggs laid in different host nests, however, these differences were the opposite of what would be expected from host mimicry. Although this paper would be strengthened by genetic data from koel eggs to determine maternity and individual identity, this paper is well written, the methodology is clear, and it expands the knowledge on koel host use. I have a few comments that the authors might consider incorporating into their manuscript:

1. I would expand the paragraph in the introduction about cryptic eggs (line 72) to introduce the reader more on the idea of why it would be advantageous for parasitic eggs to be harder for other parasites to see, and explain competition between female parasites more in-depth.

2. You mention in the general methodology (line 154-155) that measurements of host eggs in volume, shape, spotting pattern, and color from the same nest were either averaged or that nest identity was added as a random intercept. You only mention using the random intercepts later in the paper in the statistical methods. I would recommend keeping it consistent and only using random intercepts, so as not to obscure variation in these characteristics that might occur within the same nest.

3. In the discussion, you suggest that larger koel eggs might be harder for shrikes to reject, which may explain why koels lay larger eggs into the nests of shrikes. Is it possible that this pattern could also be driven by competition between koels? As stated in the paper, they have the highest parasitism rates out of the three hosts and also have high multiple parasitism rates. Perhaps larger eggs are an adaptation for koel nestlings to outcompete other koel nestlings? It might be useful to mention survival of parasitic nestlings in multiply parasitized nests.

Reviewer #3: Overall, this is a straightforward manuscript examining for evidence of host-specific egg mimicry by the brood parasitic Asian koel. The authors undertake what is a rather thorough and perhaps even exhaustive approach to explore any convergence in size, shape, reflectance/luminance or egg patterns. I am convinced that there is little evidence of egg mimicry. The authors have explored multiple possible dimensions of mimicry and to me, there are no compelling patterns.

I do confess that I was a bit perplexed as to why such an exhaustive and extensive analysis was deemed necessary. I don’t mean to be overly critical and I appreciate the carefulness but I’m wondering if there is some ongoing debate or question that required such a thorough evaluation. A number of previous references were listed indicating that Asian koel do exhibit egg mimicry of their host species but several of those references seem to be somewhat general or anecdotal reports so perhaps this is really just the focused quantitative analysis? Is there a reason why this might be a contentious issue? If there is a more compelling rationale, that needs to be developed in the introduction. If not, then perhaps the manuscript might be shortened to get straight to the point – no evidence of mimicry. I was impressed that the author list on this paper included individuals who were cited previously as having suggested egg-mimicry by Asian koels and I applaud their willingness to re-examine some of their earlier conclusions or assumptions.

There are a few small concerns to mention, but none that are not particularly critical. For example, the authors reported that they were unable to obtain spectral reflectance data of Asian koel eggs laid in house crow nests yet this would seem to be an important comparison given that the house crow is one species that the Asian koel was previously reported to mimic (and with a long history of having parasitized). The authors simply state that due to logistic reasons (not described) they were unable to analyze those eggs but I think this is a bit of a missing gap in the analysis. Again, given the lack of any evidence of mimicry in any of the other comparisons (Asian koel to the house crow eggs collected elsewhere, or comparisons of Asian koel eggs to eggs of other hosts or koel eggs in other host nests) I’m not sure that this missing piece is critical. Nice but perhaps not absolutely necessary.

More generally, it does seem that one might (snarkily) suggest that perhaps ‘much ado is being made about nothing’ given that house crows and common mynas are not ejector species and Asian koel do not evict host eggs, further lowering the cost to the host. Accordingly, why would we expect mimicry to have evolved – there would have been little selection for host-specific mimicry to evolve in these species? That long-tailed strikes do seem to reject model (non-cryptic eggs) and are – at least currently – a frequently-used host is more interesting but again little evidence of mimicry was found. The large size of the Asian koel eggs laid in nests of long-tailed strikes (which have the smallest eggs of the 3 host species) may well be an adaptation to reduce eggs rejection by the hosts, as the authors note, although this is still speculation.

The authors raise the possibility (lines 58 to 62) that perhaps “moderate mimicry” might be maintained in generalist parasites such that parasite eggs do not accurately match those of any single host but do so ‘moderately” allowing the parasite at least some opportunities to parasitize a broader variety of hosts. The question for me , then, is – what constitutes ‘moderate’ mimicry? I don’t have an operational sense of that and it seems to be a rather open ended and vague concept. How would one reject that hypothesis?

My only other comment is simply that the discussion seems rather long (almost 6 pages) given that there was no evidence of mimicry. I realize the authors are being thorough in discussing a myriad of possible reasons why mimicry has not evolved (e.g., including speculations about the mafia hypothesis, imperfect adaptation, predation rather than parasitism being a driving selection force, or that parasitic Asian koels may remove other koel eggs, etc.). These are all interesting and valid, but quite speculative; perhaps too much discussion is devoted to possible reasons why egg-mimicry does not exist, but for which there is little evidence. The discussion could be shortened by a couple of pages without expensive speculation.

In sum, I did not find any major problems with this analysis. The statistics seem to be adequate although I would suggest that perhaps not every koel egg be treated as an independent sample but rather be “nested” within each nest. I realize nest identity was included as a random intercept but I was not sure that would account for non-independence of each koel egg. Again, not a critical issue.

Overall, I think this manuscript will be a useful contribution, not only to clarify that this species does not exhibit host-specific egg mimicry – as apparently has been claimed – but perhaps even more so as an example of a thorough effort to explore many dimensions of egg mimicry for an obligate brood parasite and several of its host species.

Reviewer #4: This study explores variations in brood parasitic (Asian koel) eggs laid in three different host species. The aim of the study is to determine whether the Asian koel, to some extent, mimics the eggs of its host species. Based on analyses of egg volume, shape, spotting patterns and colour (in the context of avian color vision), the authors found little evidence on the existence of egg mimicry in Asian koel eggs. Furthermore, some characteristics of koel eggs (e.g., egg volume) appear to mismatch the phenotype of host eggs.

Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides quite a lot of details about the study system. The Methods section is clear and provides a complete overview on the general procedures and analyses. The Introduction section is a bit long and I feel that authors go overboard with speculative arguments to explain the lack of egg mimicry in Asian koel eggs. The evolution of mimicry in host-parasite systems is closely related to the costs imposed by parasitism and host rejection abilities. In my opinion, authors should focus their discussion on this point and reduce (not completely eliminate) speculative explanations (eg., tolerance and critical eggs), unless they have evidence that these mechanisms work in their systems. Some of my concerns have been addressed by the authors in their responses to reviewers' comments made to the previous version.

Other comments:

Line 48: “parasite mimicry”. Please change to “egg mimicry”.

Line 48-51: Although factors such as "climatic variables" may play a relatively important role in certain systems, it should be clearly emphasized that the evolution of egg mimicry is closely related to the evolution of host defenses (i.e., egg rejection).

Line 78: “koel chick tolerates…”. Do the authors have evidence of tolerance mechanisms in the Asian koel?

Line 70-71: While examination by spectrophotometry often reveals important information on egg mimicry, I wouldn't say that great-spotted cuckoo eggs are "quite different” from magpie eggs (in many cases they may be almost indistinguishable to the human eye). Please soften this statement.

Lines 72-76: Any mention to cryptic eggs should be integrated in the paragraph about egg mimicry. I think such a paragraph is a bit out of place in the line of argument of introduction.

Line 387: Indeed, there is experimental evidence that eggs volume is an important factor determining egg rejection (Soler at al., Relationships between egg-recognition and egg-ejection in a grasp-ejector species. 2017. Plos One 12(2)).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: John M. Eadie

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0253985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1: Comments on PONE-D-21-04869

Title: No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels Eudynamys scolopaceus

In my opinion, this manuscript was well written and made a good contribution to research area of avian brood parasitism.

Thus I have only very minor comments.

1. title:

I suggest “No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels” as title, as most titles do not necessarily have a Latin name.

Response: We have removed the Latin name from the title.

2. L80:

delete [Nahid et al submitted,], as [56] is ok.

The same as L125-126.

Response: We have revised this citation. See line 85. However, for lines 125-126 (currently, 129-132), we reported the parasitism rate of the host species during the period 2008-2017, which is not the same rate mentioned in ref no. 56 (Currently ref no. 57).

3. L81:

Delete “and may be the first brood parasite mentioned in ancient literature, as it” and changed to “which was documented…”

Response: We have revised the wording. See lines 86-87.

4. L93:

Pacific koel; and check throughout your text for this.

Response: We have revised the species name on line 98, and throughout the manuscript.

5. L94-95:

Please use “Asian koels” throughout your text.

Response: We have revised the species name, see line 100 and throughout the text.

6. L275, 330:

Table 1 and 2 should be in three-line tables.

Response: We have revised both tables accordingly. See Table 1 and 2 (lines 294-353).

7. L385-386:

In addition to ref. 104-106, here, Yang et al. (2020) should be cited.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, to revise and reduce some of the speculative arguments from the discussion, we have removed this paragraph.

8. L450-453:

Please use “see”, not “see-”

Response: We have revised this accordingly. See lines 390-394.

9. L478:

What about “Md.”? Perhaps Md. Yousuf should follow “Monoronjon Baroi”

Response: We have revised the names in Acknowledgements. See line 485.

Response: We have revised this part, see lines 72-82.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In former analyses this was averaged for the (host) egg spotting variables, but in the revised version, multiple eggs within host clutch were included, thus, allowing for using the clutch identity as random intercepts (as we did for volume and shape). This was unfortunately not edited but is now revised. See lines 162-164

Response: We agree that this aspect would be very interesting to examine. Unfortunately, we do not have data on survival probability in relation to koel egg size. With the current data we are unable to track which of the koel eggs that hatched successfully.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The extensive analysis in our study was motivated by both the theoretical expectation that host egg rejection will select for egg mimicry in brood parasites, and by conflicting evidence about how generalist parasites reconcile selection to mimic the eggs of multiple hosts with different egg phenotypes. We aimed to test these theories in the Asian koel using robust methods that take into account the differences between avian and human vision. This has now been clarified in the abstract and introduction.

Response: We acknowledge the concern. Unfortunately, we only had access to a spectrophotometer for a limited period of time and no parasitized house crow nests were found during that time. We have added this explanation in lines 250-252. While we were unable to collect reflectance data, we were able to compare the similarity of koel eggs to house crow eggs in terms of spotting pattern, volume and shape, and we found no evidence of mimicry. Moreover, for the human eye there was no evidence of mimicry of the color of house crow eggs by koel eggs laid in house crow nests, indicating a lack of mimicry in the human-visible part of the visual spectrum. We agree with the reviewer that this missing piece of evidence would complete the story, but that in its absence the evidence of a lack of mimicry is still compelling.

Response: The reviewer raises a good question about whether egg rejection would be predicted, given that two of the hosts rarely reject cuckoo eggs. However, the existing evidence presents an interesting conundrum; house crows do not reject cuckoo eggs, yet the koel egg is described as mimicking that of house crows. This is counter to theoretical expectations that mimicry of host eggs by a cuckoo will evolve in response to egg rejection by the host. A possible explanation could be that there is low rejection by house crows because egg mimicry constrains detection of cuckoo eggs, but Begum et al. 2012 showed that crows and mynas do not even reject non-mimetic eggs, whereas shrike strongly reject non-mimetic model eggs and surprisingly accept koel eggs which are quite different from their own eggs. Further mimicry could also occur in egg size, shape, UV reflectance and pattern, not just color. Thus, we were investigating all aspects of egg appearance to get to the bottom of this conundrum.

Response: We have revised this part and decided to remove the term moderate mimicry to avoid any confusion. The term ‘imperfect mimicry’ is most often used in the literature and its definition depends on the parameters of the trait under investigation. In the case of cuckoo egg colour, imperfect mimicry usually refers to an egg colour that is exactly intermediate between the colors of the various host eggs in avian visual space, e.g. Feeney et al. (2014) ‘Jack of all trades’ egg mimicry in the brood parasitic Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo? Behavioral Ecology, 25: 1365-1373. See line 59-64.

Response: We have reduced the discussion to some extent, focusing more on aspects that we have clear support for in the current results.

Response: As described on lines 167-169, based on visual inspection, koel eggs within the same host nest were different on appearance, thus, assumed to originate from different female koels. Therefore, clutch identity was only included for host eggs, accounting for non-independence of eggs sharing the same mother.

Response: Thank you for acknowledging this thorough approach.

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly, reducing the introduction to some extent, and shaping the discussion more to our main focus.

Other comments:

Line 48: “parasite mimicry”. Please change to “egg mimicry”.

Response: We have changed this to “egg mimicry”. See line 48.

Response: We have included that the main driver of egg mimicry is host defense, see lines 51-52.

Line 78: “koel chick tolerates…”. Do the authors have evidence of tolerance mechanisms in the Asian koel?

Response: We have revised this. See line 83-84.

Response: We have revised this. See line 69-72.

Lines 72-76: Any mention to cryptic eggs should be integrated in the paragraph about egg mimicry. I think such a paragraph is a bit out of place in the line of argument of introduction.

Response: We have now integrated this paragraph with the previous paragraph on egg mimicry. Also, we have elaborated in some points of cryptic eggs as Reviewer 2 suggested (see Reviewer 2 point 1). See manuscript lines 72-82.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, to revise and reduce some of the speculative arguments from the discussion, we have removed this paragraph.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Nahid et al_Response to Reviewer_Revision.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985.r004

Decision Letter 1

Petr Heneberg

17 Jun 2021

No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels

PONE-D-21-04869R1

Dear Dr. Nahid,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253985.r005

Acceptance letter

Petr Heneberg

29 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-04869R1

No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels

Dear Dr. Nahid:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Model outputs from linear mixed-effects models showing differences between Asian koel eggs from specific host nests and their corresponding host eggs (see Figs 2 and 3).

Each egg characteristic was used as response, and koel vs. host as a fixed factor.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.8KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Model outputs from linear mixed-effects models showing differences between Asian koel eggs from specific host nests and their corresponding host eggs (see Figs 2 and 3).

Log-transformed values of egg characteristic was used as response, and koel vs. host as a fixed factor, to improve normality of residuals (see, S2 Table).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.5KB, docx)}

P-values were adjusted (P.adj.) following Benjamini and Hochberg. Significant differences are denoted with letters in Figs 4 and 5.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(43KB, docx)}

S1 Data. Data file for egg volume and shape.

Egg morphology data comprising data from Asian koel, and three host species. Length and breadth in mm. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Year: 2008–2013 and 2015–2017.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(293.4KB, csv)}

S2 Data. Data file for egg spotting pattern.

Egg pattern data comprising data from Asian koel, and three host species. Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015–2017.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(41.7KB, csv)}

S3 Data. Data file for egg spectral reflectance.

Location: Jahangirnagar University campus, Bangladesh. Data collection year: 2015.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(234.2KB, xlsx)}

S4 Data. Data file for Just Noticeable Differences (JNDs).

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3KB, csv)}

S5 Data. Data file for Just Noticeable Differences (JNDs).

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3KB, csv)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Nahid et al_Response to reviewer_For Resubmission2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Nahid et al_Response to Reviewer_Revision.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

[pone.0253985.ref001] 1.Davies NB. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. London: T. & AD Poyser; 2000. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref002] 2.Rothstein SI. A model system for coevolution - avian brood parasitism. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1990; 21: 481–508. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.002405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref003] 3.Davies NB. Cuckoo: cheating by nature: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref004] 4.Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Honza M. Costs of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism to reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. J Avian Biol. 1998; 29: 209–215. doi: 10.2307/3677102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref005] 5.Soler M. Avian Brood Parasitism: Behaviour, Ecology, Evolution and Coevolution. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref006] 6.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, cuculus canorus, and its hosts.1. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol. 1989; 58(1): 207–224. doi: 10.2307/4995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref007] 7.Moksnes A, Eivin R, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC. Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour. 1990; 116(1): 64–89. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref008] 8.Avilés JM, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, et al. Avian colour perception predicts behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism in chaffinches. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(2): 293–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01898.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref009] 9.Brooke MdL, Davies NB. Egg mimicry by cuckoos Cuculus canorus in relation to discrimination by hosts. Nature. 1988; 335(6191): 630. doi: 10.1038/335630a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref010] 10.Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2010; 107(19): 8672–8676. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910486107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref011] 11.Stoddard MC, Stevens M. Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution. 2011; 65(7): 2004–2013. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01262.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref012] 12.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Rudolfsen G, Honza M. Rejection of artificial cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs in relation to variation in egg appearance among reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus). Proc R Soc B. 1999; 266(1427): 1483–1488. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref013] 13.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Obligate brood parasites as selective agents for evolution of egg appearance in passerine birds. Evolution. 2002; 56(1): 199–205. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00861.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref014] 14.Stoddard MC, Kilner RM, Town C. Pattern recognition algorithm reveals how birds evolve individual egg pattern signatures. Nat Commun. 2014; 5: 4117. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref015] 15.Abernathy VE, Peer BD. Mechanisms of egg recognition in brown-headed cowbird hosts: the role of ultraviolet reflectance. Anim Behav. 2015; 109: 73–79. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref016] 16.Honza M, Polačiková L. Experimental reduction of ultraviolet wavelengths reflected from parasitic eggs affects rejection behaviour in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. J Exp Biol. 2008; 211(15): 2519–2523. doi: 10.1242/jeb.017327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref017] 17.Honza M, Polačiková L, Procházka P. Ultraviolet and green parts of the colour spectrum affect egg rejection in the song thrush (Turdus philomelos). Biol J Linnean Soc. 2007; 92(2): 269–276. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref018] 18.Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature. 2003; 422(6928): 157. doi: 10.1038/nature01460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref019] 19.Marchetti K. Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim Behav. 2000; 59(4): 877–883. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref020] 20.Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Responses of some rare cuckoo hosts to mimetic model cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand. 1992; 23(1): 17–23. doi: 10.2307/3676422 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref021] 21.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Egg rejection in marsh warblers (Acrocephalus palustris) heavily parasitized by common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). The Auk. 2006; 123(2): 419–430. doi: 10.1093/auk/123.2.419 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref022] 22.Mason P, Rothstein SI. Coevolution and avian brood parasitism: cowbird eggs show evolutionary response to host discrimination. Evolution. 1986; 40(6): 1207–1214. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05745.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref023] 23.Zölei A, Hauber ME, Geltsch N, Moskát C. Asymmetrical signal content of egg shape as predictor of egg rejection by great reed warblers, hosts of the common cuckoo. Behaviour. 2012; 149(3–4): 391–406. doi: 10.1163/156853912X638445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref024] 24.Attard MRG, Medina I, Langmore NE, Sherratt E. Egg shape mimicry in parasitic cuckoos. J Evol Biol. 2017; 30(11): 2079–2084. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref025] 25.Taylor CJ, Langmore NE. How do brood-parasitic cuckoos reconcile conflicting environmental and host selection pressures on egg size investment? Anim Behav. 2020; 168: 89–96. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref026] 26.Lahti DC, Lahti AR. How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Anim Behav. 2002; 63(6): 1135–1142. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref027] 27.Stokke BG, Fossøy F, Røskaft E, Moksnes A. Adaptations of Brood Parasitic Eggs. In: Soler M, editor. Avian Brood Parasitism: Springer; 2017. p. 363–384. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref028] 28.Feeney WE, Welbergen JA, Langmore NE. Advances in the study of coevolution between avian brood parasites and their hosts. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 2014; 45: 227–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref029] 29.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, cuculus canorus, and its hosts.2. Host egg markings, chick discrimination and general discussion. J Anim Ecol. 1989; 58(1): 225–236. doi: 10.2307/4996 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref030] 30.Moksnes A, Røskaft E. Egg-morphs and host preference in the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool. 1995; 236(4): 625–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02736.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref031] 31.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. First evidence of regular common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, parasitism on eastern olivaceous warblers, Hippolais pallida elaeica. Naturwissenschaften. 2007; 94(4): 307–312. doi: 10.1007/s00114-006-0189-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref032] 32.Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Moskát C, Honza M. The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos. Behav Ecol. 2002; 13(2): 163–168. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.2.163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref033] 33.Røskaft E, Takasu F, Moksnes A, Stokke BG. Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defenses against brood parasitism. Behav Ecol. 2006; 17(5): 700–708. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ark019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref034] 34.Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. The enigma of imperfect adaptations in hosts of avian brood parasites. Ornithol Sci. 2005; 4(1): 17–29. doi: 10.2326/osj.4.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref035] 35.Drobniak SM, Dyrcz A, Sudyka J, Cichoń M. Continuous variation rather than specialization in the egg phenotypes of cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) parasitizing two sympatric reed warbler species. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(9): e106650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref036] 36.Edvardsen E, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Øien IJ, Honza M. Egg mimicry in cuckoos parasitizing four sympatric species of Acrocephalus warblers. The Condor. 2001; 103(4): 829–837. doi: 10.1093/condor/103.4.829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref037] 37.Antonov A, Stokke BG, Vikan JR, Fossøy F, Ranke PS, Røskaft E, et al. Egg phenotype differentiation in sympatric cuckoo Cuculus canorus gentes. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(6): 1170–1182. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01982.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref038] 38.Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Møller AP. Environmental conditions influence egg color of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and their parasite, the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007; 61(3): 475–485. doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0275-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref039] 39.Medina I, Langmore NE. The evolution of host specialisation in avian brood parasites. Ecol Let. 2016; 19(9): 1110–1118. doi: 10.1111/ele.12649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref040] 40.Fossøy F, Antonov A, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Vikan JR, Møller AP, et al. Genetic differentiation among sympatric cuckoo host races: males matter. Proc R Soc B. 2011; 278(1712): 1639–1645. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref041] 41.Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke MdL, Davies NB, Nakamura H. Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the common cuckoo. Nature. 2000; 407(6801): 183. doi: 10.1038/35025058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref042] 42.Abernathy VE, Troscianko J, Langmore NE. Egg mimicry by the pacific koel: mimicry of one host facilitates exploitation of other hosts with similar egg types. J Avian Biol. 2017; 48(11): 1414–1424. doi: 10.1111/jav.01530 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref043] 43.Feeney WE, Stoddard MC, Kilner RM, Langmore NE. “Jack-of-all-trades” egg mimicry in the brood parasitic Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo? Behav Ecol. 2014; 25(6): 1365–1373. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref044] 44.Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, et al. Behaviour of female common cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav. 2002; 64(6): 861–868. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.1969 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref045] 45.Skjelseth S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Gibbs HL, Taborsky M, Taborsky B, et al. Parentage and host preference in the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. J Avian Biol. 2004; 35(1): 21–24. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03219.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref046] 46.Peer BD, Sealy SG. Correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird. The Condor. 2004; 106(3): 580–599. doi: 10.1093/condor/106.3.580 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref047] 47.Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasitism. An overview. Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in coevolution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref048] 48.Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Norris KJ. Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. Am Nat. 1994; 144(5): 848–860. doi: 10.1086/285711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref049] 49.Cherry MI, Bennett ATD. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc B. 2001; 268(1467): 565. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref050] 50.Starling M, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A, Langmore NE. Cryptic gentes revealed in pallid cuckoos Cuculus pallidus using reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc B. 2006; 273(1596): 1929–1934. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref051] 51.Soler JJ, Avilés JM, Soler M, Møller AP. Evolution of host egg mimicry in a brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2003; 79(4): 551–563. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00209.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref052] 52.Gloag R, Keller L-A, Langmore NE. Cryptic cuckoo eggs hide from competing cuckoos. Proc R Soc B. 2014; 281(1792): 20141014. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref053] 53.Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Kilner RM. Are dark cuckoo eggs cryptic in host nests? Anim Behav. 2009; 78(2): 461–468. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref054] 54.Thorogood R, Kilner RM, Rasmussen JL. Grey Gerygone hosts are not egg rejecters, but Shining Bronze-Cuckoos lay cryptic eggs. The Auk. 2017; 134(2): 340–349. doi: 10.1642/AUK-16-128.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref055] 55.Erritzøe J, Mann CF, Brammer FP, Fuller RA. Cuckoos of the world. London: Bloomsbury (Christopher Helm); 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref056] 56.Payne RB. Cuckoos. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref057] 57.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Interactions between the Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) and its hosts. Behaviour. 2011; 148(3): 325–340. doi: 10.1163/000579511X558400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref058] 58.Ali S, Ripley SD. Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Compact edition. Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref059] 59.Friedmann H. The history of our knowledge of avian brood parasitism. Centaurus. 1964; 10(4): 282–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0498.1965.tb00628.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref060] 60.Payne R, Kirwan GM. Western Koel (Eudynamys scolopaceus). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref061] 61.Mann CF. A Taxonomic Review of Obligate and Facultative Interspecific Avian Brood Parasitism. In: Soler M, editor. Avian Brood Parasitism: Springer; 2017. p. 61–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref062] 62.Langmore NE, Spottiswoode CN. Visual trickery in avian brood parasites. In: Hughes DP, Brodeur J, Thomas F, editors. Host manipulation by parasites. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 95–118. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref063] 63.Ali H, Hasan SA, Rana SA, Beg MA, Hassan MM. Brood parasitism of Asian Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) on the House Crow (Corvus splendens) in Pothwar region of Pakistan. Pak J Ari Sci. 2007; 44(4): 627–634. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref064] 64.Baker ECS. The Oology of Indian Parasitic Cuckoos. Part III. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1906; 17(3): 678–696. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref065] 65.Dewar D. An inquiry into the parasitic habits of the Indian koel. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1907; 17(3): 765–782. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref066] 66.Lamba BS. The Indian crows: a contribution to their breeding biology, with notes on brood parasitism on them by the Indian koel. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. 1976; 71: 183–300. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref067] 67.Brooker MG, Brooker LC. Cuckoo hosts in Australia. Australian Zoological Reviews. 1989; 2: 1–67. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref068] 68.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Factors influencing host nest use by the brood parasitic Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopacea). J Ornithol. 2011; 152(3): 793–800. doi: 10.1007/s10336-011-0652-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref069] 69.Begum S, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. Responses of potential hosts of Asian cuckoos to experimental parasitism. Ibis. 2012; 154(2): 363–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2012.01213.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref070] 70.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Begum S, Røskaft E, Stokke BG. First record of Common Tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius) parasitism by Plaintive Cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus) in Bangladesh. Avian Res. 2016; 7(1): 14. doi: 10.1186/s40657-016-0049-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref071] 71.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Stokke BG, Begum S, Røskaft E, Ranke PS. How does human disturbance affect brood parasitism and nest predation in hosts inhabiting a highly fragmented landscape? Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020; 24: e01295. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref072] 72.Madge S. House Crow (Corvus splendens). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. 14. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref073] 73.Nahid MI, Fossøy F, Stokke BG, Begum S, Røskaft E. Confirmation of House Crows Corvus splendens laying immaculate blue eggs. Bird Study. 2019; 66(1): 141–144. doi: 10.1080/00063657.2018.1563047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref074] 74.Lamba BS. The nidification of some common Indian birds - Part I. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1963; 60: 121–133. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref075] 75.Narushin VG. Egg geometry calculation using the measurements of length and breadth. Poult Sci. 2005; 84(3): 482–484. doi: 10.1093/ps/84.3.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref076] 76.Picman J. Mechanism of increased puncture resistance of eggs of brown-headed cowbirds. The Auk. 1989; 106(4): 577–583. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref077] 77.Rasband WS. Image J. - National Institute of Health, Bethesda, US, <http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/>. 1997–2014.

[pone.0253985.ref078] 78.Troscianko J, Stevens M. Image calibration and analysis toolbox–a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour and pattern. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015; 6(11): 1320–1331. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref079] 79.Stoddard MC, Stevens M. Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird’s eye. Proc R Soc B. 2010; 277(1686): 1387–1393. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref080] 80.Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton PP, Doucet SM, Shawkey MD. pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013; 4(10): 906–913. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref081] 81.RCoreTeam. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020.

[pone.0253985.ref082] 82.Vorobyev M, Osorio D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc B. 1998; 265(1394): 351–358. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref083] 83.Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K. Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol. 2004; 207(14): 2471–2485. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref084] 84.Cuthill IC. Color perception. In: Hill G, McGraw K, editors. Bird coloration: mechanisms and measurements. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2006. p. 3–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref085] 85.Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC. Visual pigments, oil droplets and cone photoreceptor distribution in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Exp Biol. 1998; 201(9): 1433–1446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref086] 86.Håstad O, Ödeen A. Different ranking of avian colors predicted by modeling of retinal function in humans and birds. Am Nat. 2008; 171(6): 831–838. doi: 10.1086/587529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref087] 87.Ödeen A, Håstad O. Complex distribution of avian color vision systems revealed by sequencing the SWS1 opsin from total DNA. Mol Biol Evol. 2003; 20(6): 855–861. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msg108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref088] 88.Ödeen A, Håstad O, Alström P. Evolution of ultraviolet vision in the largest avian radiation-the passerines. BMC Evol Biol. 2011; 11(1): 313. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref089] 89.Ödeen A, Hart NS, Håstad O. Assessing the use of genomic DNA as a predictor of the maximum absorbance wavelength of avian SWS1 opsin visual pigments. J Comp Physiol A. 2009; 195(2): 167–173. doi: 10.1007/s00359-008-0395-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref090] 90.Avilés JM, Soler JJ. Nestling coloration is adjusted to parent visual performance in altricial birds irrespective of assumptions on vision system for Laniidae and owls, a reply to Renoult et al. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(1): 226–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01890.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref091] 91.Renoult JP, Courtiol A, Kjellberg F. When assumptions on visual system evolution matter: nestling colouration and parental visual performance in birds. J Evol Biol. 2010; 23(1): 220–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01885.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref092] 92.Hart NS, Hunt DM. Avian visual pigments: characteristics, spectral tuning, and evolution. Am Nat. 2007; 169(S1): S7–S26. doi: 10.1086/510141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref093] 93.Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD. Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J Comp Physiol A. 2000; 186(4): 375–387. doi: 10.1007/s003590050437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref094] 94.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological). 1995; 57(1): 289–300. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref095] 95.Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R journal. 2017; 9(2): 378–400. doi: 10.3929/ethz-b-000240890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref096] 96.Hartig F. HARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.3.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa 2020.

[pone.0253985.ref097] 97.Davies NB, Brooke MdL. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav. 1988; 36(1): 262–284. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80269-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref098] 98.Mason P, Rothstein SI. Crypsis versus mimicry and the color of shiny cowbird eggs. Am Nat. 1987; 130(2): 161–167. doi: 10.1086/284703 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref099] 99.Dawkins R, Krebs JR. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc B. 1979; 205(1161): 489–511. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref100] 100.Takasu F. Why do all host species not show defense against avian brood parasitism: evolutionary lag or equilibrium? Am Nat. 1998; 151(2): 193–205. doi: 10.1086/286111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref101] 101.Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol. 1992; 3(2): 128–132. doi: 10.1093/beheco/3.2.128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref102] 102.Grim T, Samaš P, Moskát C, Kleven O, Honza M, Moksnes A, et al. Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts? J Anim Ecol. 2011; 80(3): 508–518. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref103] 103.Medina I, Langmore NE. The evolution of acceptance and tolerance in hosts of avian brood parasites. Biol Rev. 2016; 91(3): 569–577. doi: 10.1111/brv.12181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref104] 104.Soler M, Soler JJ, Martinez JG. Great spotted cuckoos improve their reproductive success by damaging magpie host eggs. Anim Behav. 1997; 54(5): 1227–1233. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref105] 105.Soler M, Martínez JG. Is egg-damaging behavior by great spotted cuckoos an accident or an adaptation? Behav Ecol. 2000; 11(5): 495–501. doi: 10.1093/beheco/11.5.495 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref106] 106.Avilés JM. Can hosts tolerate avian brood parasites? An appraisal of mechanisms. Behav Ecol. 2018; 29(3): 509–519. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arx150 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref107] 107.Soler JJ, Soler M. Evolutionary change: facultative virulence by brood parasites and tolerance and plastic resistance by hosts. Anim Behav. 2017; 125: 101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref108] 108.Svensson EI, Råberg L. Resistance and tolerance in animal enemy–victim coevolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010; 25(5): 267–274. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref109] 109.Kilner RM, Langmore NE. Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations, counter-adaptations and outcomes. Biol Rev. 2011; 86(4): 836–852. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00173.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref110] 110.Alvarez F, de Reyna LA, Segura M. Experimental brood parasitism of the magpie (Pica pica). Anim Behav. 1976; 24(4): 907–916. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80021-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref111] 111.Marchetti K. Costs to host defence and the persistence of parasitic cuckoos. Proc R Soc B. 1992; 248(1321): 41–45. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1992.0040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref112] 112.Meshcheryagina SG, Golovatin MG, Bachurin GN. Experimental study of discrimination behavior in the yellow-browed warbler (Phylloscopus inornatus) brood-parasitized by the oriental cuckoo (Cuculus (saturatus) optatus). Russ J Ecol. 2016; 47(1): 104–106. doi: 10.1134/S1067413616010082 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref113] 113.Lawes MJ, Kirkman S. Egg recognition and interspecific brood parasitism rates in red bishops (Aves: Ploceidae). Anim Behav. 1996; 52(3): 553–563. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0197 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref114] 114.Spottiswoode CN. A brood parasite selects for its own egg traits. Biol Lett. 2013; 9(5): 20130573. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253985.ref115] 115.Šulc M, Procházka P, Capek M, Honza M. Common cuckoo females are not choosy when removing an egg during parasitism. Behav Ecol. 2016; 27(6): 1642–1649. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

No evidence of host-specific egg mimicry in Asian koels

Mominul Islam Nahid

Frode Fossøy

Bård G Stokke

Virginia Abernathy

Sajeda Begum

Naomi E Langmore

Eivin Røskaft

Peter S Ranke

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Study area

Parasite and host community

Fig 1. Average spectral reflectance of three host species and Asian koel eggs laid in nests of two hosts (common myna and long-tailed shrike; note that house crow was not included due to lack of spectral reflectance data).

General methodology

Egg size and shape

Egg pattern

Egg color and luminance

Statistical analysis

Results

Egg volume and shape

Table 1. Linear mixed-effects models on egg characteristics (volume, shape and spotting pattern) of Asian koel eggs and three host species (common myna, house crow and long-tailed shrike).

Fig 2. Egg volume and shape of Asian koel (AK) eggs laid in specific host nests (left panels) and eggs of host species (right panel).

Egg pattern variables

Fig 3. Egg spotting pattern variables of Asian koel (AK) eggs laid in the nests of three host species (left panel) and two host species (house crow and long-tailed shrike; right panel).

Eggshell reflectance and color

Fig 4. Average achromatic and chromatic JNDs ± SD between Asian koel eggs laid in common myna nests (AK_CM) compared to three hosts: The house crow (HC), the common myna (CM) and the long-tailed shrike (LTS) and the eggs of the Asian koel laid in long-tailed shrike nests (AK_LTS).

Fig 5. Average achromatic and chromatic JNDs ± SD between Asian koel eggs laid in long-tailed shrike nests compared to three hosts: The house crow (HC), the common myna (CM) and the long-tailed shrike (LTS) and the eggs of the Asian koel laid in common myna nests (AK_CM).

Table 2. Linear mixed effects model using cone stimulation values of Asian koel eggs as response, and host species (common myna and long-tailed shrike) and in different egg regions (blunt, middle, top) as fixed effects.

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to previous submission

Decision Letter 0

Petr Heneberg

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Petr Heneberg

Roles

Acceptance letter

Petr Heneberg

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases