Effect of host egg color dimorphism on interactions between the vinous‐throated parrotbill (Paradoxornis webbianus) and common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)

References

• Collias , EC . 1993 . Inheritance of egg‐color polymorphism in the village weaver . Ploceus cucullatus. Auk , 110 : 683 – 692 .
   Google Scholar
• Cruz , A and Wiley , JW . 1989 . The decline of an adaptation in the absence of a presumed selection pressure . Evolution , 43 : 55 – 62 .
   Google Scholar
• Davies , NB and de L Brooke , M . 1988 . Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations . Anim Behav , 36 : 262 – 284 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang , BS . 1999 . “ Breeding ecology of the vinous‐throated parrotbill ” . In Paradoxornis webbiana , Seoul, , Korea : Kyung Hee University . Ms Thesis
   Google Scholar
• Kim , CH , Yamagishi , Y and Won , PO . 1995a . Breeding biology of the crow tit Paradoxornis webbiana. . Korean J Ornithol , 2 : 1 – 10 .
   Google Scholar
• Kim , CH , Yamagishi , Y and Won , PO . 1995b . Egg‐color dimorphism and breeding success of the crow tit (Paradoxornis webbiana. . Auk , 112 : 831 – 839 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim , CH . 1996 . Behavioral characteristics between the parasite and host: Crow Tits Paradoxornis webbiana and Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus. . Korean J Ornithol , 3 : 51 – 57 .
   Google Scholar
• Kim , CH . 1998 . Social behavior of the crow tit Paradoxornis webbiana during the breeding season . Korean J Ornithol , 5 : 17 – 26 .
   Google Scholar
• Lack , D . 1968 . “ Ecological Adaptation for Breeding Birds ” . Methuen, London
   Google Scholar
• Lahti , DC and Lahti , AR . 2002 . How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? . Anim Behav , 63 : 1135 – 1142 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , JB . 1996 . “ General trend of reproduction and factors affecting between individual variation within breeding populations of crow tit ” . In Paradoxornis webbiana , Korea : Kyung Hee University Seoul . Ms Thesis
   Google Scholar
• Major , RE and Kendal , CE . 1996 . The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusions . Ibis , 138 : 298 – 307 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park , EM , Kim , CH , Yamagishi , S and Won , PO . 1993 . Breeding biology of crow tit Paradoxornis webbiana fulvicauda (Campbell) in Korea . Korran Bull Inst Ornithol , 4 : 47 – 61 .
   Google Scholar
• Robson , C . 2000 . A Guide to the Birds of Southeast Asia , Princeton : Princeton University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Rohwer , S and Spaw , CD . 1988 . Evolutionary lag versus bill‐size constraints: a comparative study of the acceptance of cowbird eggs by old hosts . Evol Ecol , 2 : 27 – 36 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein , SI . 1974 . Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors . Auk , 91 : 675 – 691 .
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein , SI . 1975 . An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism . Condor , 77 : 250 – 271 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein , SI . 1982 . Successes and failures in avian egg and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimality reasoning . Amer Zool , 22 : 547 – 560 .
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein , SI . 1990 . A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism . Annu Rev Ecol Syst , 21 : 481 – 508 .
   Google Scholar
• Soler , M , Soler , JJ , Martinez , JG , Perez‐Contreras , T and Møller , AP . 1998 . Microevolutionary change and population dynamic of a brood parasite and its primary host: the intermittent arms race hypothesis . Oecologia , 118 : 265 – 276 .
   Google Scholar
• Victoria , JK . 1972 . Clutch characteristics and egg discriminative ability of the African village weaverbird Ploceus cucullatus. . Ibis , 114 : 367 – 376 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidinger , K . 2001 . Does egg colour affect predation rate on open passerine nests? . Behav Ecol Sociobiol , 49 : 456 – 464 .
   Google Scholar
• Won , PO and Gore , MEJ . 1971 . The Birds of Korea , Seoul : Taewon .
   Google Scholar
• To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 82–2–961–0849, Fax: 82–2–964–0591 E‐mail: [email protected]
   Google Scholar