Zachary AIDALA, Nicola CHONG, Michael G. ANDERSON, Mark E. HAUBER. 2012: Predicted visual sensitivity for short-wavelength light in the brood parasitic cuckoos of New Zealand. Avian Research, 3(4): 295-301. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0035
Citation: Zachary AIDALA, Nicola CHONG, Michael G. ANDERSON, Mark E. HAUBER. 2012: Predicted visual sensitivity for short-wavelength light in the brood parasitic cuckoos of New Zealand. Avian Research, 3(4): 295-301. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0035

Predicted visual sensitivity for short-wavelength light in the brood parasitic cuckoos of New Zealand

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Zachary Aidala, E-mail: zaidala@gc.cuny.edu

  • Received Date: 09 Oct 2012
  • Accepted Date: 01 Dec 2012
  • Available Online: 23 Apr 2023
  • Different lineages of birds show varying sensitivity to light in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths. In several avian brood parasite-host systems, UV-reflectance of the parasite eggs is important in discriminating own from foreign eggs by the hosts. In turn, for parasitic females it may be beneficial to lay eggs into host clutches where eggs more closely match the parasite's own eggs. While the visual sensitivities of numerous cuckoo- and cowbird-host species have been described, less is known about those of their respective parasites. Such sensory characterization is important for understanding the mechanisms underlying potential perceptual coevolutionary processes between hosts and parasites, as well as for better understanding each species' respective visual sensory ecology. We sequenced the short wavelength-sensitive type 1 (SWS1) opsin gene to predict the degree of UVsensitivity in both of New Zealand's obligate parasitic cuckoo species, the Shining Cuckoo (Chalcites[Chrysococcyx] lucidus) and the Long-tailed Cuckoo (Urodynamis[Eudynamis] taitensis). We show that both species are predicted to possess SWS1 opsins with maximal sensitivity in the human-visible violet portion of the short-wavelength light spectrum, and not in the UV. Future studies should focus on the (mis)matching in host-parasite visual sensitivities with respect to host-parasite egg similarity as perceived by the avian visual system and the behavioral outcomes of foreign egg rejection.

  • Interactions between avian obligate brood parasites and their hosts remain one of the most robust examples of coevolutionary arms races (Davies, 2000; Stoddard and Stevens, 2010; Kilner and Langmore, 2011). The best studied and historically most prominent example of such interactions is the evolved mimicry of host eggs by parasites (Moksnes and Røskaft 1995; Cherry et al., 2007a; Moskát et al., 2008, 2010; Spottiswoode and Stevens, 2010; Soler et al., 2012). Despite the extensive similarities in the appearance of host and parasitic eggs (Grim, 2005), many host species possess the ability to discriminate between own and foreign eggs (Stoddard and Stevens, 2011). Much attention has recently been given to the functional roles of light wavelengths beyond the human perceptual range in avian egg discrimination, including the role of the shorter, ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths (< 400 nm) (e.g. Honza et al., 2007), to which different species of birds within distantly related lineages are varyingly sensitive (e.g. Ödeen and Håstad, 2003; Machovsky Capuska et al., 2011; Aidala et al., 2012). For example, UV-reflectance is important in recognizing and rejecting foreign eggs in the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) (Honza and Polačiková, 2008) and the Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) (Honza et al., 2007). However, comparatively less emphasis has been given to describing the visual sensitivities, UV or otherwise, of avian obligate brood parasites themselves.

    Describing the visual sensitivities of specific bird species is vital, especially because the avian visual world differs substantially from that of humans. For example, unlike trichromatic humans, who possess only three classes of cone photoreceptor, birds possess five classes, four of which are directly responsible for color perception (Hunt et al., 2009). The short wavelength-sensitive type 1 (SWS1) photoreceptor, which is responsible for short-wavelength light detection, differs in its maximal sensitivity depending on the amino acids present at key 'spectral tuning' sites 86, 90, and 93 (following the bovine Bos taurus rhodopsin numbering) (Wilkie et al., 2000; Yokoyama et al., 2000; Shi et al., 2001). Of these, amino acid residue 90 is particularly important for mediating the degree of UV-sensitivity in avian species (Wilkie et al., 2000; Hunt et al., 2009). Those species possessing serine at site 90 (S90) are designated as having violet-sensitive (VS) pigments with a maximal sensitivity > 400 nm, and those possessing cysteine (C)90 are designated as having UV-sensitive (UVS) pigments with a maximal sensitivity < 400 nm (Hart, 2001). Site 90 is also highly conserved, with S90 proposed to be the ancestral state in all birds (Yokoyama and Shi, 2000; Hunt et al., 2009), though recent analyses of basal paleognaths (which were not included in these earlier analyses) including extinct moa from New Zealand, predicted a uniform UVS SWS1 for all ratites and tinamou allies (Aidala et al., 2012). Therefore, it is likely that C90 has (re-)evolved independently several times among avian lineages (Hunt et al., 2009; Ödeen et al., 2010; Machovsky Capuska et al., 2011; Ödeen et al., 2011, Aidala et al. 2012). Because microspectrophotometric and genetic data are in accord with one another in avian taxa for which both types of data are available (i.e. those possessing S90 have VS SWS1 opsins and those possessing C90 have UVS SWS1 opsins), DNA sequencing of the SWS1 opsin gene therefore permits accurate assessment of the degree of UV-sensitivity in any given avian species (Ödeen and Håstad, 2003) before the need for invasive and terminal physiological experimentation to confirm the sequence-based predictions (Aidala and Hauber, 2010).

    Much of the work on the functional role of UVreflectance and sensitivity in brood parasitic birds has focused on explaining the lack of eggshell color-based egg rejection to seemingly non-mimetic parasitic eggs. Cherry and Bennett's (2001) UV-matching hypothesis suggests that matching host/parasitic egg reflectance along a UV-green opponency (which humans cannot see) may explain the lack of rejection in acceptor host species. Empirical support for this hypothesis, however, is equivocal. For example, blocking-the UV-reflectance of Great-spotted Cuckoo (Clamator glandarius) eggs does not affect rejection in Common Magpies (Pica pica) (Avilés et al., 2006). However, the UVS/VS SWS1 sensitivity in this parasite-impacted host species has not been described, although other Corvidae species are predicted to be VS based on SWS1 DNA sequencing (Ödeen and Håstad, 2003). More critically, no apparent relationship between accepter/rejecter status and UVS/ VS SWS1 sensitivity appears to exist among hosts of the North American generalist brood parasite, the Brownheaded Cowbird (Molothrus ater) and many of its hosts (Underwood and Sealy, 2008; Aidala et al., 2012).

    The degree of UV egg color-matching/UV light sensitivity in New Zealand obligate brood parasite-host systems is not yet described using reflectance spectrophotometric or avian perceptual modeling data. The endemic Grey Warbler (Gerygone igata) is an ac-cepter host of the local subspecies of the native Shin-ing Cuckoo (in Australia, called the Shining-bronze Cuckoo; Chalcites [Chrysococcyx] lucidus) (McLean and Waas, 1987; also reviewed in Grim, 2006). In turn, the Whitehead (Mohoua albicilla), Yellowhead (M. ochro-cephala), and Brown Creeper (M. novaeseelandiae) are endemic hosts of the also endemic Long-tailed Cuckoo (Urodynamis [Eudynamis] taitensis) (Payne, 2005). The Whitehead and Yellowhead are both considered accept-er hosts (McLean and Waas, 1987; Briskie, 2003), while the Brown Creeper ejects artificial Long-tailed Cuckoo eggs at a rate of 67% (Briskie, 2003). DNA sequencing of the SWS1 photoreceptor in the Grey Warbler and the Whitehead predicted a VS and a UVS SWS1 maximal sensitivity, respectively (Aidala et al., 2012), whereas the predicted sensitivities of their respective parasites are not well known.

    Compared to the large amount of effort spent char-acterizing the visual sensitivities of host species, those of brood parasites themselves, especially to UV-wavelengths, have received considerably less attention. To date, the SWS1 sensitivities have not been described in any Cuculiformes species, although a study measuring UV-reflectance in feather patches of 24 of 143 (17%) total cuckoo species showed that 5 of the species (21% of those measured) showed peaks in UV-reflectance (Mullen and Pohland, 2008). As there are increasingly more known inter-and intra-order variations in avian UV-sensitivity (Ödeen and Håstad, 2003; Machovsky Capuska et al., 2011; Aidala et al., 2012; Ödeen et al., 2012), and because visual systems among closely related species may vary widely, and are likely to reflect speciesspecific sensory ecologies (Machovsky Capuska et al., 2012), reliance on species for which SWS1 sensitivity data are available even within a lineage to approximate the degree of UV-sensitivity may be inaccurate.

    Characterization of the UV-sensitivities of brood parasitic species is important for several reasons. First, it will allow for stronger analysis of comparative per-ceptual coevolution between hosts and parasites (An-derson et al., 2009). For example, recent egg color work using spectrophotometric measurements across the entire avian visible range have provided new insights into the direction of coevolutionary processes between hosts and parasites. Great Reed Warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) are more likely to reject mimetic Com-mon Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs when this hosts?own eggs exhibit higher intraclutch variation, a finding not in line with traditional predictions of coevolution-ary theory, but validated by spectrophotometric mea-surements of host eggs (Cherry et al., 2007a; see also Antonov et al., 2012). Similarly, Common Cuckoos may preferentially parasitize host nests with eggs more closely resembling their own, also out of line with the theoretical assumption that female cuckoos randomly choose local nests to parasitize (Cherry et al., 2007b). Second, describing the visual sensitivities of brood parasitic cuckoo species will better inform studies ex-amining cuckoo-cuckoo competition (Brooker et al., 1990) over host nesting sites using visual modeling analyses. Third, it will allow for more accurate analysis of VS/UVS SWS1 opsin ancestral states among avian species (Hunt et al., 2009; Aidala et al., 2012). Here, we report the predicted maximal sensitivities of the SWS1 opsins in two New Zealand native brood parasitic cuck-oos based on DNA sequencing of the SWS1 'pectral tuning?region. In keeping with the general theoretical framework that host egg rejection selects for egg color matching, and in turn, favors UV-sensitivity in hosts, which in turn selects for UV-sensitivity in parasites, we expect the Shining Cuckoo that parasitizes the VS-pre-dicted Grey Warbler to possess VS SWS1 opsins and the Long-tailed Cuckoo that parasitizes the UVS-predicted Whitehead to possess UVS SWS1 opsins.

    We collected ~100 μL blood samples that were stored in Queen's lysis buffer from live Shining Cuckoos captured in mistnets during our field studies on avian hostparasite interactions (Anderson et al., 2009). We also obtained tissue samples from frozen Long-tailed Cuckoos that died from migration-related window-collisions and were stored in the Auckland Museum collection (Gill and Hauber, 2012). Our collecting protocols were approved by governmental and institutional animal research committees. Total genomic DNA was extracted from tissue samples stored in ethanol using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen) according to manufacturer's instructions. DNA concentration (ng·μL–1) was estimated using Nanodrop spectrophotometer.

    Forward primers SU149a (Shining Cuckoo) or SU193 (Long-tailed Cuckoo) and reverse primer SU306b (Ödeen and Håstad, 2003), modified to include M13- tails, were used to sequence the SWS1 opsin gene. PCR amplifications were carried out in 25 μL reaction volumes of 60 mmol·L–1 Tris-HCl ph 8.5, 15 mmol·L–1 (NH4)2SO4, 2.5 mmol·L–1 MgCl2, 0.3 mmol·L–1 of each dNTP, 0.2 μmol·L–1 of each primer and 0.5 U of Platinum Taq polymerase (Invitrogen). Thermal cycling followed conditions outlined in Ödeen and Håstad (2003) and was conducted in an ABI GeneAmp 9700 thermocycler.

    An Exo/SAP treatment was used to purify PCR products: 5 μL PCR product was added to 0.2 μL of Exo I (GE Healthcare), 0.1 μL Shrimp Alkaline Phosphatase (GE Healthcare) and 1.7 μL UltraPure water (Invitrogen). We incubated mixtures for 30 min at 37℃, then for 15 min at 80℃ to ensure enzyme inactivation. A BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit v3.1 (Applied Biosystems) was used to sequence samples in both directions with M13 forward and reverse primers. Each sequencing reaction consisted of 1 μL BigDye Terminator Mix, 3.5 μL 5× sequencing buffer, 0.2 μmol·L–1 primer, 1 μL DMSO and 2 μL PCR product. Agencourt CleanSeq (Beckman Coulter) was used according to manufacturer's instructions to purify sequencing reactions and analyzed using an ABI 3100 automated sequencer. Chromas Pro (Technelysium Pty. Ltd.) was used to edit sequences following which they were exported to BioEdit (Hall, 1999) for alignment and translation.

    The two Shining Cuckoo samples generated a sequence length of 119 base pairs (bp) each. The two Long-tailed Cuckoo samples generated a sequence length of 74 bp each. All sequences have been made available on GenBank (Accession numbers HM159121–HM159124). We detected no intraspecific or intrafamilial variation in either the gene or amino acid sequences, except for the codons at residue 95; however, both of these code for the amino acid phenylalanine (Table 1). We found only two ambiguities in one Long-tailed Cuckoo sample, whereas the other Long-tailed Cuckoo possessed the same codons and amino acid residues as the two Shining Cuckoo samples (Table 1). After alignment, all samples possessed S86, S90, and T93, which predict VS for both of these cuckoo species' SWS1 opsin photoreceptors.

    Table  1.  Predicted VS/UVS SWS1 opsin state of two New Zealand cuckoo species based on SWS1 amino acid sequences. Passerine host species are shown below each cuckoo species and were adapted from Aidala et al. (2012). Spectral tuning sites 86, 90, and 93 are underlined.
    Scientific name Common name GenBank Accession Number Amino acid sequence Predicted SWS1 sensitivity
    86 90 93
    Chrysococcyx lucidus Shining-bronze Cuckoo HM159121 VKYKKLRQPLNYILVNISFSGFISCIFSVFTVFVSSSQG VS
    Chrysococcyx lucidus Shining-bronze Cuckoo HM159122 VKYKKLRQPLNYILVNISFSGFISCIFSVFTVFVSSSQG VS
    Gerygone igata 1 Grey Warbler HM159130 NISFSGFMCCIFSVFTVFVSSAQG VS
    Gerygone igata 2 Grey Warbler HM159131 NISFSGFMCCIFSVFTVFVSSAQG VS
    Urodynamis taitensis Long-tailed Cuckoo HM159123 N?SFSGFISCIFSVFTVF?SSSQG VS
    Urodynamis taitensis Long-tailed Cuckoo HM159124 NISFSGFISCIFSVFTVFVSSSQG VS
    Mohoua albicilla Whitehead Aidala et al., 2012 VKYKKLRQPLNYILVNISVSGLMCCIFCLFTVFISSSQG UVS
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This is the first study to report on the sequence of SWS1 receptors and to predict short-wavelength visual sensitivities of New Zealand's brood parasitic native Shining Cuckoos and endemic Long-tailed Cuckoos. Substituting S for A at amino acid residue 86 (A86S substitution) produces a short-wave shift of 1 nm, a T93V substitution produces a long-wave shift of 3 nm, and a C90S substitution produces a 35 nm long-wave shift in the UVS SWS1 opsin of the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) (Wilkie et al. 2000). The same C90S substitution in the Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata) produces a similar-magnitude long-wave shift of SWS1 maximal sensitivity from 359 to 397 nm (Yokoyama et al., 2000). Thus, despite possessing S86 and T93 in both species, the presence of S90 predicts that the SWS1 maximal sensitivities of our cuckoo samples should be well within the visible-violet portion of the light spectrum, or VS (Table 1).

    This finding is contradictory to our original prediction that only the Long-tailed Cuckoo should possess UVS SWS1 opsins due to the predicted UVS SWS1 of its Whitehead host (in contrast with the VS SWS1 of the Shining Cuckoo's Grey Warbler host; Table 1). Accordingly, we did not observe a distinct pattern between predicted SWS1 sensitivities of our cuckoo samples and those of their hosts. Both the Grey Warbler and Whitehead are non-ejector hosts of the Shining and Longtailed Cuckoos respectively, yet these host species differ in their predicted SWS1 maximal sensitivities; DNA sequencing of the SWS1 photoreceptor gene predicted a VS SWS1 in the Grey Warbler but a UVS SWS1 in the Whitehead (Aidala et al., 2012). Predicted sensitivities of the other two Long-tailed Cuckoo hosts, the non-ejector Yellowhead, and the artificial egg-ejecting Brown Creeper are not yet described from molecular sequencing data. Also undocumented is the degree of physical or perceptual host-parasite egg color matching, in the UV-portion specifically, and in the avianvisible spectrum overall, in these two host-parasite systems. Nonetheless, human-visible assessment suggests some level of mimicry between Long-tailed Cuckoos and their hosts (Briskie, 2003), whereas the dark Shining Cuckoo's eggs may be cryptic, and not mimetic, in the enclosed nests of the Grey Warbler hosts (see Langmore et al., 2009).

    An alternative to perceptual coevolutionary processes mediating the detection of parasitic eggs in New Zealand hosts is that the cost of accepting parasitic eggs might be offset by recognizing and rejecting parasitic cuckoo chicks (Davies, 2000). Despite a lack of direct behavioral or sensory data in our focal systems, there is evidence of parasitic chick detection and ejection based on visual appearance in the closely related Australian Large-billed Gerygone (Gerygone manirostris)/Little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites [Chrysococcyx] minutillus) (Sato et al., 2010) and Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus)/Shining Cuckoo host-parasite systems (Langmore et al., 2003; see also Langmore et al., 2011). Further, there is evidence of evolved call-matching of the begging calls of Grey Warblers by Shining Cuckoo chicks based on both sound recordings (McLean and Waas, 1987) and comparative phylogenetic inference (Anderson et al., 2009). Similarly, McLean and Waas (1987) noted and Ranjard et al. (2010) provided bioacoustic evidence for the evolved similarity between the begging calls of the Long-tailed Cuckoo and its Mohoua spp. hosts. Other parasitic cuckoo-host systems, including the Horsefield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites [Chrysococcyx] basalis) and its Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) hosts (Langmore et al., 2003, 2008; Colombelli-Negrel et al., 2012), the Diederick Cuckoo (Chrysococcyx caprius) and its hosts, and the Koel (Eudynamis scolopacea) and its House Crow (Corvus splendens) hosts have also been shown to have similar begging calls (reviewed in Grim, 2006).

    Characterizing the visual sensitivities of diverse avian lineages, including parasitic cuckoo species, is an important step in understanding the coevolution of visual perception/parasitic egg rejection behaviors in hostparasite interactions and sensory ecology. These studies form the basis for future visual modeling and sensoryphysiological studies for more accurate description of the perceptual systems of focal cuckoo species. Future studies should investigate the behavioral significance of egg color matching in driving sensory coevolution using appropriate visual perceptual modeling analyses of both host and parasitic species (Aidala and Hauber, 2010). Additional Cuculiformes species should also be included in future analyses in order to better describe the degree of V/UV-matching in host-parasite egg color mimicry and its perception and the ecological variables that may drive or hinder the evolution of UV-sensitivity amongst parasitic and non-parasitic cuckoos (Krüger et al., 2009).

    All field work was conducted in accordance with local animal ethics rules and regulations in New Zealand and the University of Auckland. We thank Brian Gill for providing tissue samples of Long-tailed Cuckoos at the Auckland Museum and Andrew Fidler for advice on sequencing. We also thank the many volunteers for assistance in field work, and two anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments on our manuscript. This research was funded by the US National Science Foundation and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (to ZA and to MEH), a Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology postdoctoral fellowship (to MGA), and the National Geographic Society, the PSC-CUNY grant scheme, and the Human Frontier Science Program (to MEH).

  • Aidala Z, Hauber ME. 2010. Avian egg coloration and visual ecology. Nat Educ Knowl, 1:4.
    Aidala Z, Huynen L, Brennan PLR, Musser J, Fidler A, Chong N, Machovsky Capuska GE, Anderson MG, Talaba A, Lambert D, Hauber ME. 2012. Ultraviolet visual sensitivity in three avian lineages: paleognaths, parrots, and passerines. J Comp Physiol A, 198:495–510.
    Anderson MG, Ross RA, Brunton DH, Hauber ME. 2009. Begging call matching between a specialist brood parasite and its host: a comparative approach to detect coevolution. Biol J Linn Soc, 98:208–216.
    Antonov A, Stokke BG, Fossy F, Ranke PS, Lang W, Yang C, Moksnes A, Shykoff J, Rskaft E. 2012. Are cuckoos maximizing egg mimicry by selecting host individuals with better matching egg phenotypes? PLoS ONE, 7: e31704.
    Avilés JM, Soler JJ, Prez-Contreras T, Soler M, Mller AP. 2006. Ultraviolet reflectance of great spotted cuckoo eggs and egg discrimination by magpies. Behav Ecol, 17:310–314.
    Briskie JV. 2003. Frequency of egg rejection by potential hosts of the New Zealand cuckoos. Condor, 105:719–727.
    Brooker LC, Brooker MG, Brooker AMH. 1990. An alternative population/genetic model for the evolution of egg mimesis and egg crypsis in cuckoos. J Theor Biol, 146:123–143.
    Cherry MI, Bennett ATD. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc Lond B, 268:565–571.
    Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C. 2007a. Host intra-clutch variation, cuckoo egg matching and egg rejection by great reed warblers. Naturwissenschaften, 94:441–447.
    Cherry MI, Bennett ATD, Moskát C. 2007b. Do cuckoos choose nests of great reed warblers on the basis of host egg appearance? J Evol Biol, 20:1218–1222.
    Colombelli-Negrel D, Hauber ME, Roberston J, Sulloway FJ, Hoi H, Griggio M, Evans C, Kleindorfer S 2012. Embryonic learning of vocal passwords in superb fairy-wrens reveals intruder cuckoo nestlings. Curr Biol, 22:2155–2160.
    Davies NB. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds, and Other Cheats. Poyser, London.
    Gill BJ, Hauber ME. 2012. Piecing together the epic transoceanic migration of the long-tailed cuckoo Eudynamys taitensis (Aves: Cuculidae): an analysis of museum and sighting records. Emu, Published Online 3 Sep 2012.
    Grim T. 2005. Mimicry vs. similarity: which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not? Biol J Linn Soc, 84:69–78.
    Grim T. 2006. The evolution of nestling discrimination by hosts of parasitic birds: why is rejection so rare? Evol Ecol Res, 8:785–802.
    Hall TA. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser (Oxf), 41:95–98.
    Hart NS. 2001. The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res, 20:675–703.
    Honza M, Polačiková L. 2008. Experimental reduction of ultraviolet wavelengths reflected from parasitic eggs affects rejection behavior in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. J Exp Biol, 211:2519–2523.
    Honza M, Polačiková L, Procházka P. 2007. Ultraviolet and green parts of the colour spectrum affect egg rejection in the song thrush (Turdus philomelos). Biol J Linn Soc, 92:269–276.
    Hunt DM, Carvalho LS, Cowing JA, Davies WL. 2009. Evolution and spectral tuning of visual pigments in birds and mammals. Philos T Roy Soc B, 364:2941–2955.
    Kilner RM, Langmore NE. 2011. Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations, counter-adaptations and outcomes. Biol Rev, 86:836–852.
    Krüger O, Sorenson MD, Davies NB. 2009. Does coevolution promote species richness in parasitic cuckoos? Proc R Soc Lond B, 276:3871–3879.
    Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM. 2003. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature, 422:157–160.
    Langmore NE, Maurer G, Adcock GJ, Kilner RM. 2008. Socially acquired host-specific mimicry and the evolution of host races in Horsfields bronze-cuckoo Chalcites basalis. Evolution, 62:1689–1699.
    Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Kilner RM. 2009. Are dark cuckoo eggs cryptic in host nests? Anim Behav, 78:461–468.
    Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Heinsohn R, Hall ML, Peters A, Kilner RM. 2011. Visual mimicry of host nestlings by cuckoos. Proc R Soc Lond B, 278:2455–2463.
    Machovsky Capuska GE, Huynen L, Lambert D, Raubenheimer D. 2011. UVS is rare in seabirds. Vis Res, 51:1333–1337.
    Machovsky Capuska GE, Howland HC, Raubenheimer D, Vaugh R, Wursig B, Hauber ME, Katzir G. 2012. Visual accommodation and active pursuit of prey underwater in a plunge diving bird: the Australasian gannet. Proc R Soc Lond B, 279:4118–4125.
    McLean IG, Waas JR. 1987. Do cuckoo chicks mimic the begging calls of their hosts? Anim Behav, 35:1896–1907.
    Moksnes A, Rskaft E. 1995. Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool, 236:625–648.
    Moskát C, Székely T, Cuthill IC, Kisbenedek T. 2008. Hosts' responses to parasitic eggs: which cues elicit hosts' egg discrimination? Ethology, 114:186–194.
    Moskát C, Ban M, Szekely T, Komdeur J, Lucassen RWG, van Boheemen LA, Hauber ME. 2010. Discordancy or template-based recognition? Dissecting the cognitive basis of the rejection of foreign eggs in hosts of avian brood parasites. J Exp Biol, 213:1976–1983.
    Mullen P, Pohland G. 2008. Studies on UV reflection in feathers of some 1000 bird species: are UV peaks correlated with violet-sensitive and ultraviolet-sensitive cones? Ibis, 150:59–68.
    Ödeen A, Håstad O. 2003. Complex distribution of avian color vision systems revealed by sequencing the SWS1 opsin from total DNA. Mol Biol Evol, 20:855–861.
    Ödeen A, Håstad O, Alström P. 2010. Evolution of ultraviolet vision in shorebirds (Charadiiformes). Biol Lett, 6:370–374.
    Ödeen A, Håstad O, Alström P. 2011. Evolution of ultraviolet vision in the largest avian radiation: the passerines. BMS Evol Biol, 11:313.
    Ödeen A, Pruett-Jones S, Driskell AC, Armenta JK, Håstad O. 2012. Multiple shifts between violet and ultraviolet vision in a family of passerine birds with associated changes in plumage coloration. Proc R Soc Lond B, 279:1269–1276.
    Payne RB. 2005. The Cuckoos. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Ranjard L, Anderson MG, Rayner MJ, Payne RB, McLean I, Briskie JV, Ross HA, Brunton DH, Woolley SMN, Hauber ME. 2010. Bioacoustic distances between the begging calls of brood parasites and their host species: a comparison of metrics and techniques. Beh Ecol Sociobiol, 64:1915–1926.
    Sato NJ, Tokue K, Noske RA, Mikami OK, Ueda K. 2010. Evicting cuckoo nestlings from the nest: a new anti-parasitism behaviour. Biol Lett, 6:6769.
    Shi Y, Radlwimmer FB, Yokoyama S. 2001. Molecular genetics and the evolution of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 98:11731–11736.
    Soler JJ, Avilés JM, Mller AP, Moreno J. 2012. Attractive blue-green coloration and cuckoo-host coevolution. Biol J Linn Soc B, 106:154–168.
    Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M. 2010. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107:8672–8676.
    Stoddard MC, Stevens M. 2010. Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a birds eye. Proc R Soc B, 277:1387–1393.
    Stoddard MC, Stevens M. 2011. Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution, 65:2004–2013.
    Underwoord TJ, Sealy SG. 2008. UV reflectance of eggs of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and accepter and rejecter hosts. J Ornithol, 149:313–321.
    Wilkie SE, Robinson PR, Cronin TW, Poopalasundarum S, Bowmaker JK, Hunt DM. 2000. Spectral tuning of avian violet- and ultraviolet-sensitive visual pigments. Biochemistry, 39:7895–7901.
    Yokoyama S, Shi Y. 2000. Genetics and evolution of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates. FEBS Lett, 486:167–172.
    Yokoyama S, Radlwimmer FB, Blow NS. 2000. Ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97:7366–7371.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Tables(1)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (2281) PDF downloads (1303) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return