z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Ultraviolet and green parts of the colour spectrum affect egg rejection in the song thrush ( Turdus philomelos )
Author(s) -
HONZA MARCEL,
POLAČIKOVÁ LENKA,
PROCHÁZKA PETR
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
biological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.906
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1095-8312
pISSN - 0024-4066
DOI - 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00848.x
Subject(s) - mimicry , biology , thrush , zoology , genetics , cervical cancer , cancer , human papilloma virus
Much attention has been devoted to understanding the evolution of egg mimicry in avian brood parasites. The majority of studies have been based on human perception when scoring the mimicry of the parasitic egg. Surprisingly, there has been no detailed study on the recognition and sensitivity towards differently coloured parasitic eggs. We investigated effect of different colours of the experimental eggs measured by ultraviolet (UV)‐visible reflectance spectrophotometry on rejection behaviour in the song thrush ( Turdus philomelos ). We carried out a set of experiments with four blue model eggs representing mimetic eggs, whereas six other colours represented nonmimetic eggs. Our results revealed that two colours originally designed as a mimetic were rejected at a high rate, whereas one group of the nonmimetic was accepted. A multiple regression model of absolute differences between song thrush and experimental eggs on rejection rate showed that the level of mimicry in the UV and green parts of the colour spectrum significantly influenced egg rejection in the song thrush. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed study showing that different colour perception by the birds can affect their responses towards the parasitic egg. These findings suggest that the combination of UV and visible ranges of the spectra plays a major role in the evolution of discrimination processes, as well as in the evolution of the mimicry of the parasitic egg. © 2007 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2007, 92 , 269–276.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here