7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Egg discrimination along a gradient of natural variation in eggshell coloration

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Accurate recognition of salient cues is critical for adaptive responses, but the underlying sensory and cognitive processes are often poorly understood. For example, hosts of avian brood parasites have long been assumed to reject foreign eggs from their nests based on the total degree of dissimilarity in colour to their own eggs, regardless of the foreign eggs' colours. We tested hosts' responses to gradients of natural (blue-green to brown) and artificial (green to purple) egg colours, and demonstrate that hosts base rejection decisions on both the direction and degree of colour dissimilarity along the natural, but not artificial, gradient of egg colours. Hosts rejected brown eggs and accepted blue-green eggs along the natural egg colour gradient, irrespective of the total perceived dissimilarity from their own egg's colour. By contrast, their responses did not vary along the artificial colour gradient. Our results demonstrate that egg recognition is specifically tuned to the natural gradient of avian eggshell colour and suggest a novel decision rule. These results highlight the importance of considering sensory reception and decision rules when studying perception, and illustrate that our understanding of recognition processes benefits from examining natural variation in phenotypes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence.

          Humans and other animals must often make decisions on the basis of imperfect evidence. Statisticians use measures such as P values to assign degrees of confidence to propositions, but little is known about how the brain computes confidence estimates about decisions. We explored this issue using behavioural analysis and neural recordings in rats in combination with computational modelling. Subjects were trained to perform an odour categorization task that allowed decision confidence to be manipulated by varying the distance of the test stimulus to the category boundary. To understand how confidence could be computed along with the choice itself, using standard models of decision-making, we defined a simple measure that quantified the quality of the evidence contributing to a particular decision. Here we show that the firing rates of many single neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex match closely to the predictions of confidence models and cannot be readily explained by alternative mechanisms, such as learning stimulus-outcome associations. Moreover, when tested using a delayed reward version of the task, we found that rats' willingness to wait for rewards increased with confidence, as predicted by the theoretical model. These results indicate that confidence estimates, previously suggested to require 'metacognition' and conscious awareness are available even in the rodent brain, can be computed with relatively simple operations, and can drive adaptive behaviour. We suggest that confidence estimation may be a fundamental and ubiquitous component of decision-making.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs.

            One of the most striking outcomes of coevolution between species is egg mimicry by brood parasitic birds, resulting from rejection behavior by discriminating host parents. Yet, how exactly does a host detect a parasitic egg? Brood parasitism and egg rejection behavior provide a model system for exploring the relative importance of different visual cues used in a behavioral task. Although hosts are discriminating, we do not know exactly what cues they use, and to answer this it is crucial to account for the receiver's visual perception. Color, luminance ("perceived lightness") and pattern information have never been simultaneously quantified and experimentally tested through a bird's eye. The cuckoo finch Anomalospiza imberbis and its hosts show spectacular polymorphisms in egg appearance, providing a good opportunity for investigating visual discrimination owing to the large range of patterns and colors involved. Here we combine field experiments in Africa with modeling of avian color vision and pattern discrimination to identify the specific visual cues used by hosts in making rejection decisions. We found that disparity between host and foreign eggs in both color and several aspects of pattern (dispersion, principal marking size, and variability in marking size) were important predictors of rejection, especially color. These cues correspond exactly to the principal differences between host and parasitic eggs, showing that hosts use the most reliable available cues in making rejection decisions, and select for parasitic eggs that are increasingly mimetic in a range of visual attributes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Arms races between and within species.

              An adaptation in one lineage (e.g. predators) may change the selection pressure on another lineage (e.g. prey), giving rise to a counter-adaptation. If this occurs reciprocally, an unstable runaway escalation or 'arms race' may result. We discuss various factors which might give one side an advantage in an arms race. For example, a lineage under strong selection may out-evolve a weakly selected one (' the life-dinner principle'). We then classify arms races in two independent ways. They may be symmetric or asymmetric, and they may be interspecific or intraspecific. Our example of an asymmetric interspecific arms race is that between brood parasites and their hosts. The arms race concept may help to reduce the mystery of why cuckoo hosts are so good at detecting cuckoo eggs, but so bad at detecting cuckoo nestlings. The evolutionary contest between queen and worker ants over relative parental investment is a good example of an intraspecific asymmetric arms race. Such cases raise special problems because the participants share the same gene pool. Interspecific symmetric arms races are unlikely to be important, because competitors tend to diverge rather than escalate competitive adaptations. Intraspecific symmetric arms races, exemplified by adaptations for male-male competition, may underlie Cope's Rule and even the extinction of lineages. Finally we consider ways in which arms races can end. One lineage may drive the other to extinction; one may reach an optimum, thereby preventing the other from doing so; a particularly interesting possibility, exemplified by flower-bee coevolution, is that both sides may reach a mutual local optimum; lastly, arms races may have no stable and but may cycle continuously. We do not wish necessarily to suggest that all, or even most, evolutionary change results from arms races, but we do suggest that the arms race concept may help to resolve three long-standing questions in evolutionary theory.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Biol Sci
                Proc. Biol. Sci
                RSPB
                royprsb
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                8 February 2017
                8 February 2017
                : 284
                : 1848
                : 20162592
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biology, Long Island University - Post , Brookville, NY 11548-1300, USA
                [2 ]Department of Zoology and Laboratory of Ornithology, Palacký University , Olomouc 77146, Czech Republic
                [3 ]Department of Biology, University of Akron , Akron, OH 44325, USA
                [4 ]Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University , Canberra 2601, Australia
                [5 ]Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires , C1428EHA Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [6 ]Department of Biology, Evolution and Optics of Nanostructures Group, Ghent University , Ghent 9000, Belgium
                [7 ]Department of Psychology, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York , New York, NY 10065, USA
                [8 ]Department of Animal Biology, School of Integrative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Urbana, IL 61801, USA
                Author notes

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3672193.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0523-4335
                Article
                rspb20162592
                10.1098/rspb.2016.2592
                5310612
                28179521
                91f7c949-73a0-4004-a14b-a0be44f6e2f8
                © 2017 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 22 November 2016
                : 10 January 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Human Frontier Science Program, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000854;
                Award ID: RGY83/2012
                Funded by: European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic;
                Award ID: CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0041
                Funded by: Air Force Office of Scientific Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000181;
                Award ID: FA9550-16-1-0331
                Categories
                1001
                14
                42
                60
                Ecology
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                February 8, 2017

                Life sciences
                brood parasitism,colour perception,decision-making,egg discrimination,recognition
                Life sciences
                brood parasitism, colour perception, decision-making, egg discrimination, recognition

                Comments

                Comment on this article