Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs

Reed warblers sometimes make recognition errors when faced with a mimetic cuckoo egg in their nest and reject one or more of their own eggs rather than the foreign egg. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we analyse responses to model eggs to quantify the costs and benefits of acceptance...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences Biological sciences, 1996-07, Vol.263 (1372), p.925-931
Hauptverfasser: Davies, Nicholas Barry, Brooke, M. De L., Kacelnik, Alejandro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 931
container_issue 1372
container_start_page 925
container_title Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences
container_volume 263
creator Davies, Nicholas Barry
Brooke, M. De L.
Kacelnik, Alejandro
description Reed warblers sometimes make recognition errors when faced with a mimetic cuckoo egg in their nest and reject one or more of their own eggs rather than the foreign egg. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we analyse responses to model eggs to quantify the costs and benefits of acceptance versus rejection in parasitized and unparasitized nests. We show that below a threshold of 19-41% parasitism, the warblers should accept mimetic cuckoo eggs because the costs of rejection outweigh the benefits, whereas above this threshold they should reject. The warblers behaved as predicted; when they saw a cuckoo at their nest they usually showed rejection, but without the sight of the cuckoo they behaved appropriately for the average parasitism rate in Britain (6%) and tended to accept.
doi_str_mv 10.1098/rspb.1996.0137
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_istex</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_V84_WFXN9N54_F</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>50576</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>50576</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c610t-6e025fdb0a3fb296335120f2f73edb557dcfd508b90d3f62de6ae6bdf82915273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM2O0zAUhSMEEmVgy4KVXyAd_9ROskJDaQFpGKoOUHZWYl-37qRxZLtAEQ-P06KRKsSsLOt-55x7T5a9JHhMcFVe-tA3Y1JVYowJKx5lIzIpSE4rPnmcjXAlaF5OOH2aPQthizGueMlH2e8lKLfubLSuQzPvnQ-o7jRaeNfUjW1tPCBn0KL2dUhQ2KG3EMHvbAdotYG4AY-WABqtat-0kNS3G7dvNbpSCvqI3DDegoroo91BtApN9-rOOTRbr8Pz7Imp2wAv_r4X2Zf57PP0fX796d2H6dV1rgTBMReAKTe6wTUzDa0EY5xQbKgpGOiG80IrozkumwprZgTVIGoQjTYlrQinBbvIxidf5V0IHozsvd3V_iAJlkN3cuhODt3JobskCCeBd4e0mFMW4kFu3d536SuXt4s3CcbfqWA28VTikhEsSJH8ftn-aDcAMgHShrAHecTOY_5NZQ-l_nfXVyfVNkTn7y_jmBciDfPT0IYIP--Htb-TomAFl1_LiVzNv91UN3wi54l_feI3dr35YT3Is12O0cp1Ebp4vO14VUW5NPu2lb02yYE86OAOvQ_NmZj9Aatw25k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Davies, Nicholas Barry ; Brooke, M. De L. ; Kacelnik, Alejandro</creator><creatorcontrib>Davies, Nicholas Barry ; Brooke, M. De L. ; Kacelnik, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><description>Reed warblers sometimes make recognition errors when faced with a mimetic cuckoo egg in their nest and reject one or more of their own eggs rather than the foreign egg. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we analyse responses to model eggs to quantify the costs and benefits of acceptance versus rejection in parasitized and unparasitized nests. We show that below a threshold of 19-41% parasitism, the warblers should accept mimetic cuckoo eggs because the costs of rejection outweigh the benefits, whereas above this threshold they should reject. The warblers behaved as predicted; when they saw a cuckoo at their nest they usually showed rejection, but without the sight of the cuckoo they behaved appropriately for the average parasitism rate in Britain (6%) and tended to accept.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-8452</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2954</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0137</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: The Royal Society</publisher><subject>Animal nesting ; Arms races ; Bird nesting ; Brood parasitism ; Eggs ; Evolution ; Mimicry ; Population dynamics ; Signal detection theory ; Warblers</subject><ispartof>Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences, 1996-07, Vol.263 (1372), p.925-931</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1996 The Royal Society</rights><rights>Scanned images copyright © 2017, Royal Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c610t-6e025fdb0a3fb296335120f2f73edb557dcfd508b90d3f62de6ae6bdf82915273</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c610t-6e025fdb0a3fb296335120f2f73edb557dcfd508b90d3f62de6ae6bdf82915273</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/50576$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/50576$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Davies, Nicholas Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brooke, M. De L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kacelnik, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><title>Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs</title><title>Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences</title><addtitle>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B</addtitle><addtitle>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B</addtitle><description>Reed warblers sometimes make recognition errors when faced with a mimetic cuckoo egg in their nest and reject one or more of their own eggs rather than the foreign egg. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we analyse responses to model eggs to quantify the costs and benefits of acceptance versus rejection in parasitized and unparasitized nests. We show that below a threshold of 19-41% parasitism, the warblers should accept mimetic cuckoo eggs because the costs of rejection outweigh the benefits, whereas above this threshold they should reject. The warblers behaved as predicted; when they saw a cuckoo at their nest they usually showed rejection, but without the sight of the cuckoo they behaved appropriately for the average parasitism rate in Britain (6%) and tended to accept.</description><subject>Animal nesting</subject><subject>Arms races</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Brood parasitism</subject><subject>Eggs</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Mimicry</subject><subject>Population dynamics</subject><subject>Signal detection theory</subject><subject>Warblers</subject><issn>0962-8452</issn><issn>1471-2954</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM2O0zAUhSMEEmVgy4KVXyAd_9ROskJDaQFpGKoOUHZWYl-37qRxZLtAEQ-P06KRKsSsLOt-55x7T5a9JHhMcFVe-tA3Y1JVYowJKx5lIzIpSE4rPnmcjXAlaF5OOH2aPQthizGueMlH2e8lKLfubLSuQzPvnQ-o7jRaeNfUjW1tPCBn0KL2dUhQ2KG3EMHvbAdotYG4AY-WABqtat-0kNS3G7dvNbpSCvqI3DDegoroo91BtApN9-rOOTRbr8Pz7Imp2wAv_r4X2Zf57PP0fX796d2H6dV1rgTBMReAKTe6wTUzDa0EY5xQbKgpGOiG80IrozkumwprZgTVIGoQjTYlrQinBbvIxidf5V0IHozsvd3V_iAJlkN3cuhODt3JobskCCeBd4e0mFMW4kFu3d536SuXt4s3CcbfqWA28VTikhEsSJH8ftn-aDcAMgHShrAHecTOY_5NZQ-l_nfXVyfVNkTn7y_jmBciDfPT0IYIP--Htb-TomAFl1_LiVzNv91UN3wi54l_feI3dr35YT3Is12O0cp1Ebp4vO14VUW5NPu2lb02yYE86OAOvQ_NmZj9Aatw25k</recordid><startdate>19960722</startdate><enddate>19960722</enddate><creator>Davies, Nicholas Barry</creator><creator>Brooke, M. De L.</creator><creator>Kacelnik, Alejandro</creator><general>The Royal Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960722</creationdate><title>Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs</title><author>Davies, Nicholas Barry ; Brooke, M. De L. ; Kacelnik, Alejandro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c610t-6e025fdb0a3fb296335120f2f73edb557dcfd508b90d3f62de6ae6bdf82915273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Animal nesting</topic><topic>Arms races</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Brood parasitism</topic><topic>Eggs</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Mimicry</topic><topic>Population dynamics</topic><topic>Signal detection theory</topic><topic>Warblers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Davies, Nicholas Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brooke, M. De L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kacelnik, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Davies, Nicholas Barry</au><au>Brooke, M. De L.</au><au>Kacelnik, Alejandro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs</atitle><jtitle>Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences</jtitle><stitle>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B</stitle><addtitle>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B</addtitle><date>1996-07-22</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>263</volume><issue>1372</issue><spage>925</spage><epage>931</epage><pages>925-931</pages><issn>0962-8452</issn><eissn>1471-2954</eissn><abstract>Reed warblers sometimes make recognition errors when faced with a mimetic cuckoo egg in their nest and reject one or more of their own eggs rather than the foreign egg. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we analyse responses to model eggs to quantify the costs and benefits of acceptance versus rejection in parasitized and unparasitized nests. We show that below a threshold of 19-41% parasitism, the warblers should accept mimetic cuckoo eggs because the costs of rejection outweigh the benefits, whereas above this threshold they should reject. The warblers behaved as predicted; when they saw a cuckoo at their nest they usually showed rejection, but without the sight of the cuckoo they behaved appropriately for the average parasitism rate in Britain (6%) and tended to accept.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>The Royal Society</pub><doi>10.1098/rspb.1996.0137</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-8452
ispartof Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences, 1996-07, Vol.263 (1372), p.925-931
issn 0962-8452
1471-2954
language eng
recordid cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_V84_WFXN9N54_F
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Animal nesting
Arms races
Bird nesting
Brood parasitism
Eggs
Evolution
Mimicry
Population dynamics
Signal detection theory
Warblers
title Recognition Errors and Probability of Parasitism Determine Whether Reed Warblers Should Accept or Reject Mimetic Cuckoo Eggs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T20%3A25%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_istex&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Recognition%20Errors%20and%20Probability%20of%20Parasitism%20Determine%20Whether%20Reed%20Warblers%20Should%20Accept%20or%20Reject%20Mimetic%20Cuckoo%20Eggs&rft.jtitle=Proceedings%20of%20the%20Royal%20Society.%20B,%20Biological%20sciences&rft.au=Davies,%20Nicholas%20Barry&rft.date=1996-07-22&rft.volume=263&rft.issue=1372&rft.spage=925&rft.epage=931&rft.pages=925-931&rft.issn=0962-8452&rft.eissn=1471-2954&rft_id=info:doi/10.1098/rspb.1996.0137&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_istex%3E50576%3C/jstor_istex%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=50576&rfr_iscdi=true