Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 The responses of redstarts to artificial egg parasitism experiments and natural parasitism events

From: The common redstart as a suitable model to study cuckoo-host coevolution in a unique ecological context

Treatment Number Ejected Deserted Accepted (%)
Manipulated nests
 Control (touch) 89 0 5 84 (94.4)
 Mimetic
  Blue model 12 2 2 8 (66.7)
  Conspecific 14 0 0 14 (100.0)
 Non-mimetic
  Spotted model 13 6 1 6 (46.2)
  Immaculate model 7 2 0 5 (71.4)
  Spotted own egg 17 0 1 16 (94.1)
  Black own egg 22 10 2 10 (45.5)
  Blue great tit egg 25 19 0 6 (24.0)
 Cuckoo egg 73 0 1 72 (98.6)
 Rim cuckoo egg put-in 21 0 2 19 (90.5)
Non-manipulated nests
 Parasitiseda 43 0 8 35 (81.4)
 Non-parasitisedb
  1. All experimental nests are detailed with the number of ejected, deserted and accepted outcomes. We do not have any ‘Excluded’ nests (cf. [24]) because we effectively prevented predation by using nails (see Methods and Fig. 1a). Additional to the mimetic blue ‘redstart’ type model and the non-mimetic spotted (speckled) model (see [24]) we used several other treatments. Data on conspecific eggs (natural host eggs) are from the present study; data on blue, spotted and immaculate (creamy white) models are from [32]; data on own eggs painted with spots or completely black are from [34], and here we additionally included the deserted nests missing in the original study. We use the terms ‘mimetic’ and ‘non-mimetic’ as terms describing the relative similarity between experimental and the host’s own eggs (i.e., not in the absolute objective sense: [37]) and to facilitate the comparison with the same categories as understood by [24]
  2. aEffectively parasitised nests where at least one cuckoo egg was naturally laid into the host nest cup
  3. bAccording to our standard protocol that we use in all our studies (e.g., [7, 16, 28, 32, 34]), eggs in all nests were touched, handled and measured, therefore we do not have nests without any manipulation as [24] did