UV reflectance as a cue in egg discrimination in two Prinia species exploited differently by brood parasites in Taiwan

Ibis (2013), 155, 571–575

UV reflectance as a cue in egg discrimination in two Prinia species exploited differently by brood parasites in Taiwan CANCHAO YANG,1,2 LONGWU WANG,1 YU-CHENG HSU,3 ANTON ANTONOV,4† ARNE MOKSNES,4 EIVIN RØSKAFT,4 WEI LIANG1* & B ARD G. STOKKE4 1 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Tropical Animal and Plant Ecology, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China 2 State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China 3 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan 4 Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

Birds are capable of seeing the ultraviolet light (UV) spectrum and as a consequence have evolved UV-reflective structures with signalling functions. Avian eggs also reflect in the UV spectrum but the importance of UV egg matching in egg rejection decisions has been equivocal. Here we conducted egg rejection experiments in the congeneric and sympatrically breeding Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris and Plain Prinia Prinia inornata in Taiwan to assess the role of UV as a cue in egg discrimination. Yellow-bellied Prinia is a host of Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus optatus, whereas Plain Prinia is not. We coated one prinia egg in the experimental clutches with a cream containing a UV-blocking agent, while the rest of the eggs were coated with cream only. We also experimentally parasitized prinias with non-mimetic model eggs with reduced UV reflectance. Yellow-bellied Prinia and Plain Prinia rejected their own UV-blocked eggs in 18.2 and 8.3% of the experiments, respectively, and the difference was not significant. However, Yellow-bellied Prinia rejected 100% of the non-mimetic eggs, whereas the Plain Prinia rejected only 5%. Hence, UV reflectance alone is a cue in egg discrimination, but the importance of reflectance outside the UV spectrum in these two prinia species is much more responsive to selection as a consequence of brood parasitism. Keywords: co-evolution, host defence, Oriental Cuckoo, Plain Prinia, Yellow-bellied Prinia.

Cuckoo–host interactions are model systems for studying co-evolution (Rothstein & Robinson 1998). In such systems, hosts evolve anti-parasite adaptations to counter brood parasitism, which in turn selects for better cuckoo trickery (Rothstein & Robinson 1998, Davies 2000). The most common host defence against brood parasitism is the evolution of recognition and rejection of foreign egg (Davies 2000, Peer & Sealy 2004). Hosts of avian brood parasites use various egg morphology cues such as colour and luminance, spotting *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] †

Deceased 20 May 2012.

© 2013 British Ornithologists’ Union

pattern and egg size/shape to distinguish the parasitic egg and some species rely on multiple cues (Rothstein 1982, Mason & Rothstein 1986, Marchetti 2000, Aviles et al. 2010, Spottiswoode & Stevens 2010, Antonov et al. 2011). Avian and human vision differ fundamentally in several aspects including the presence of ultravioletsensitive photoreceptors and oil droplets in the avian eye that are absent from the human eye (Goldsmith et al. 1984, Vorobyev et al. 1998). Birds perceive ultraviolet (UV) light and use it in food selection (Viitala et al. 1995, Church et al. 1998). Furthermore, patches of adult plumage, nestling skin and gapes reflect in the UV region and serve as signals in mate choice and offspring care (e.g. Andersson & Amundsen 1997, Siitari &

572

C. Yang et al.

Huhta 2002, Jourdie et al. 2004). As avian eggs also reflect in the UV region, hosts of brood parasites might use UV information as a cue to recognize foreign eggs (Cherry & Bennett 2001). This hypothesis has recently received research attention but the only two experimental tests yielded inconsistent results (Aviles et al. 2006, Honza & Polacikova 2008). Here we experimentally assessed the importance of UV as a cue in egg rejection decisions by blocking the UV reflectance of single eggs within clutches of the Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris and Plain Prinia Prinia inornata on Taiwan. We also assessed egg discrimination in relation to non-mimetic model eggs with a very low UV reflectance. The two prinias breed sympatrically, but only Yellow-bellied Prinia has been engaged in co-evolutionary interactions with the only brood parasite breeding in Taiwan, the Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus optatus (Lin 2008, Yang et al. 2012). If UV alone is used as a cue in egg recognition, we predicted some rejection of UV-blocked eggs but no rejection of eggs with unaltered UV reflectance. However, if reflectance outside the UV range is a more important cue, rejection rates of nonmimetic and largely UV-blocked eggs in the two species should be related to the degree to which they have interacted with the local parasite. METHODS This study was conducted at Shou-Feng, Hualien County in eastern Taiwan (23°51′33.0″N, 121°31′ 16.9″E) in 2010–2011 (April–July). Yellow-bellied Prinia and Plain Prinia are small passerines in the Cisticolidae found in southern Asia (MacKinnon & Phillips 1999) and breed sympatrically at high densities in the study area (L. Wang, Y.-C. Hsu & W. Liang unpubl. data). Both species build semiopen nests in Couch Grass Miscanthus floridulu but lay distinctly coloured eggs (Fig. 1). Yellowbellied Prinia is parasitized by the Oriental Cuckoo, which lays highly mimetic eggs (L. Wang, Y.-C. Hsu & W. Liang unpubl. data; see also Yang et al. 2012), and also by the Plaintive Cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus (Well 1999). However, Plain Prinia has not yet been recorded as a cuckoo host (Lin 2008, Yang et al. 2012). Experiments were performed when the hosts laid their last egg or within 2–3 days following clutch completion. In the model egg treatment, one host egg was exchanged with a white model

© 2013 British Ornithologists’ Union

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Mean  sd of egg reflectance of prinia eggs treated with a UV-blocking agent (black), and unmanipulated (grey) and white model (white) eggs. (a) Yellow-bellied Prinia, (b) Plain Prinia. Yellow-bellied Prinia eggs are uniformly coloured and the average reflectance is given, whereas Plain Prinia eggs have distinct spots, and hence the reflectance of ground colour (black, above) and spots (black, below) is presented separately.

egg, appearing completely non-mimetic to host eggs and having low UV reflectance (Figs 1 and 2). In the UV manipulation treatment, we coated one randomly selected host egg with a UV-blocking powder (ESK-UV638, Lisheng Development Plasticizing Co. Ltd., Taichung, Taiwan, www.lisheng117.com.tw) mixed with cream (CPC Corporation Taiwan, product DI 27875). All the remaining host eggs in the clutch were coated with cream to control for the effects of the cream application. UV blocking effectively set to zero the UV-reflectance of the treated eggs in the 300– 370 nm wavelength interval but left reflectance shapes over the remaining wavelength range (400– 700 nm) unaltered (Fig. 1). UV-blocking cream was applied only once on each experimental egg because its effects persisted for 6 days (see below). We also established a control group of nests that were visited at the same frequency as experimental nests and the eggs were handled but not manipulated in any other way. Experimental nests were monitored on a daily basis for 6 days to record host response, which was classified as acceptance (foreign or UVblocked egg incubated) or rejection (foreign or

UV as a cue in egg discrimination

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Robinson projections of egg colour hue of prinia eggs treated with an UV-blocking agent (black), and unmanipulated (grey) and white model (white) eggs. (a) Yellow-bellied Prinia, (b) Plain Prinia. In (b), squares and circles refer to spot and ground colour, respectively. Grey triangles indicate projection of the short (s), medium (m) and long (l) wavelength vertices of the tetrahedron depicting avian visual space.

UV-blocked egg gone) (Moksnes et al. 1991). No desertions were recorded. Reflectance spectra were processed through tetrahedral colour space (Goldsmith 1990) using the TETRACOLORSPACE software (Stoddard & Prum 2008). We used the average spectral sensitivity curves for UVS-type retinas from Endler and Mielke (2005). In a tetrahedron each spectrum is represented by a point, where the vertices correspond to exclusive stimulation of the UV, blue, green and red-sensitive cones in the avian eye. To visualize hue distributions independently of chroma, we mapped colours onto a unit sphere centred on the achromatic origin using a Robinson projection, in which the position of each point (egg in this case) is determined by the horizontal (RGB) and vertical (UV) components of hue. RESULTS After 6 days of incubation, the RGB hue was not significantly different between UV-blocked and UV-unaltered eggs (Yellow-bellied Prinia: paired t20 = 1.26, P = 0.22; Plain Prinia spot colour:

573

t22 = 0.53, P = 0.60; Plain Prinia ground colour: t22 = 0.90, P = 0.38, Fig. 2). However, UV blocking significantly reduced the UV hue of the treated eggs (Yellow-bellied Prinia: t20 = 14.2, P < 0.001; Plain Prinia spot colour: t22 = 4.0, P < 0.001; Plain Prinia ground colour: t22 = 13.4, P < 0.001; Fig. 2). Yellow-bellied Prinias rejected all the nonmimetic model eggs (10/10), whereas Plain Prinias rejected only 5% (1/21) of them, a highly significant difference (v21 = 26.8, P < 0.001). Yellow-bellied Prinia and Plain Prinia rejected their own eggs treated with a UV-blocking agent in 18.2% (4/22) and 8.3% (2/24) of the experiments, respectively, and only UV-blocked eggs were rejected. No significant between-species difference in rejection rates in this treatment was found (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.405). We recorded no egg rejection in the control groups in either species (0/10 for each species). DISCUSSION The only two previous experimental studies investigating the influence of UV matching on egg rejection used either natural cuckoo eggs (Aviles et al. 2006) or foreign conspecific eggs (Honza & Polacikova 2008) and their results are inconsistent. Aviles et al. (2006) found that only seven of 43 (16.3%) experimental eggs and seven of 46 (15.2%) control eggs introduced were ejected, suggesting that most of the responses against experimental eggs were not due to UV-blocked eggs being detected as parasitic eggs by the Eurasian Magpie Pica pica. Honza and Polacikova (2008) demonstrated that both UV wavelengths and total brightness of experimental eggs within the 325– 700 nm range significantly influenced host rejection behaviour in the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla, thus supporting the significance of UV reflectance in the egg recognition processes of the host. Despite the relatively low frequency of rejections in the UV-treatment, our study shows for the first time that hosts may reject their own eggs when the UV reflectance spectrum is altered. By manipulating host eggs, inherently consistent in egg traits, we controlled for all the other confounding egg characteristics likely to induce egg discrimination, thus revealing the specific effect of UV in egg rejection decisions. Altering the UV of a host’s own eggs rather than cuckoo eggs (which are also bigger, and different in shape and shell

© 2013 British Ornithologists’ Union

574

C. Yang et al.

texture) is a stronger approach to experimentally testing the hypothesis that UV reflectance alone can be a cue in triggering rejection responses. There is to date no evidence that hosts reject their own eggs in the absence of brood parasitism, even when challenged by presentations of brood parasites at the nest (Davies & Brooke 1988,  Røskaft et al. 2002, Capek et al. 2010). Our study shows that manipulating UV reflectance per se elicits egg rejection responses in UV-sensitive hosts of brood parasites. An important issue regarding the role of UV is posed by the results of egg rejection experiments in studies using model eggs that inherently have a low or close to zero UV reflectance (Cherry et al. 2007). Artificial eggs painted to mimic host eggs are largely accepted by some Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus hosts possessing well-developed egg discrimination abilities (Davies & Brooke 1989). Therefore, these results imply that UV reflectance alone might not be a sufficient cue in host egg recognition. A wider range of visual cues might be used to reject alien eggs by hosts. Our study is the first to provide strong evidence in support of this hypothesis by testing two congeneric, sympatrically breeding passerines having a different history of co-evolutionary interactions with the local brood parasite. Although both prinia species responded slightly and similarly to gross manipulations of the UV spectrum, their responses to nonmimetic eggs having a very low UV reflectance were dramatically different. Yellow-bellied Prinia, a host of a cuckoo having evolved mimetic eggs, rejected all non-mimetic and largely non-UVreflective eggs, whereas a very low rejection rate of such eggs was apparent in the Plain Prinia, which is not parasitized by the Oriental Cuckoo. The reasons for the differential utilization of these sympatric prinias by the Oriental Cuckoo are the subject of ongoing research. We thank Rauri Bowie, Farah Ishtiaq, Brian Peer and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on this manuscript. Brian Peer kindly helped with improving the English text of this manuscript. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31071938 to W.L., B.G.S. and A.A., No. 31101646 to C.Y. and A.A., No. 31272328 to W.L., and 31260514 to C.Y.); a China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project (20110490967) to C.Y., and by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-10-0111) to W.L. We thank Shun-Jen Cheng for assistance in the field.

© 2013 British Ornithologists’ Union

REFERENCES Andersson, S. & Amundsen, T. 1997. Ultraviolet colour vision and ornamentation in bluethroats. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264: 1587–1591. s, J.M., Stokke, B.G., Spasova, V., Vikan, Antonov, A., Avile J.R., Moksnes, A., Yang, C., Liang, W. & Røskaft, E. 2011. Egg discrimination in an open nesting passerine under dim light conditions. Ethology 117: 1128–1137. s, J.M., Soler, J.J., Pe rez-Contreras, T., Soler, M. & Avile Møller, A.P. 2006. Ultraviolet reflectance of great spotted cuckoo eggs and egg discrimination by magpies. Behav. Ecol. 17: 310–314. s, J.M., Vikan, J.R., Fossøy, F., Antonov, A., Moksnes, Avile A., Røskaft, E. & Stokke, B.G. 2010. Avian colour perception predicts behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism in chaffinches. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 293–301.  , M., Procha  zka, P. & Honza, M. Capek, M., Pozgayova 2010. Repeated presentations of the common cuckoo increase nest defense by the Eurasian Reed Warbler but do not induce it to make recognition errors. Condor 112: 763– 769. Cherry, M.I. & Bennett, A.T.D. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 565–571. Cherry, M.I., Bennett, A.T.D. & Moskat, C. 2007. Host intraclutch variation, cuckoo egg matching and egg rejection by great reed warblers. Naturwissenschaften 94: 441–447. Church, S.C., Bennett, A.T.D., Cuthill, I.C. & Partridge, J.C. 1998. Ultraviolet cues affect the foraging behaviour of Blue Tits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 1509–1514. Davies, N.B. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. London: T & AD Poyser. Davies, N.B. & Brooke, M. de L. 1988. Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim. Behav. 36: 262–284. Davies, N.B. & Brooke, M. de L.1989. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J. Anim. Ecol. 58: 207– 224. Endler, J.A. & Mielke, P.W. 2005. Comparing entire colour patterns as bird see them. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86: 405–431. Goldsmith, T.H. 1990. Optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes. Q. Rev. Biol. 65: 281–322. Goldsmith, T.H., Collins, J.S. & Licht, S. 1984. The cone oil droplets of avian retinas. Vis. Res. 24: 1661–1671. ikova  , L. 2008. Experimental reduction of Honza, M. & Polac ultraviolet wavelengths reflected from parasitic eggs affects rejection behaviour in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. J. Exp. Biol. 211: 2519–2523. Jourdie, V., Moureau, B., Bennett, A.T.D. & Heeb, P. 2004. Ultraviolet reflectance by the skin of nestlings. Nature 431: 262. Lin, R.X. 2008. Observation of oriental cuckoo parasitism on Rufous-capped Babbler in central Taiwan. Nat. Conserv. 64: 58–62. MacKinnon, J. & Phillips, K. 1999. A Field Guide to the Birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marchetti, K. 2000. Egg rejection in a passerine bird: size does matter. Anim. Behav. 59: 877–883.

UV as a cue in egg discrimination

Mason, P. & Rothstein, S.I. 1986. Coevolution and avian brood parasitism: cowbird eggs show evolutionary response to host discrimination. Evolution 40: 1207–1214. Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E., Braa, A.T., Korsnes, L., Lampe, H.M. & Pedersen, H.C. 1991. Behavioral responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116: 64–89. Peer, B.D. & Sealy, S.G. 2004. Correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Condor 106: 580–599. Røskaft, E., Moksnes, A., Meilvang, D., Bicık, V.,  , J. & Honza, M. 2002. No evidence for Jemelıkova recognition errors in Acrocephalus warblers. J. Avian Biol. 33: 31–38. Rothstein, S.I. 1982. Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which egg parameters elicit responses by rejecter species? Behav. Ecol. Socibiol. 11: 229–239. Rothstein, S.I. & Robinson, S.K. 1998. Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Siitari, H. & Huhta, E. 2002. Individual color variation and male quality in pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca): a role of ultraviolet reflectance. Behav. Ecol. 13: 737–741. Spottiswoode, C.N. & Stevens, M. 2010. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in

575

rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107: 8672–8676. Stoddard, M.C. & Prum, R.O. 2008. Evolution of avian plumage color in a tetrahedral color space: a phylogenetic analysis of new world buntings. Am. Nat. 171: 755–776. Viitala, J., Koprimaki, E., Palokangas, P. & Koivula, M. 1995. Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature 373: 425–427. Vorobyev, M., Osorio, D., Bennett, A.T.D., Marshall, N.J. & Cuthill, I.C. 1998. Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J. Comp. Physiol. A 183: 621–633. Well, D.R. 1999. The Birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula. Vol. 1, Non-passerines. New York: Academic Press. Yang, C., Liang, W., Antonov, A., Cai, Y., Stokke, B.G., Fossøy, F., Moksnes, A. & Røskaft, E. 2012. Diversity of parasitic cuckoos and their hosts in China. Chin. Birds 3: 9–32. Received 28 April 2012; revision accepted 13 January 2013. Associate Editor: Farah Ishtiaq.

© 2013 British Ornithologists’ Union