Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations

Davies, N. B.; Brooke, M. de L.

Animal Behaviour, 1988

Peer-reviewedfield experimentwild

Model eggs of varying appearance were placed in wild reed warbler nests and the host response — acceptance, ejection or nest desertion — recorded. Egg appearance, timing of the placement, and whether an adult cuckoo had been seen near the nest were varied across trials.

Studied in
Cuculus canorus, Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Sample size
model eggs placed in wild reed warbler nests across seasons

Hosts rejected eggs that differed from their own and accepted closely matching ones, with rejection rates rising as the mismatch increased. Rejection was also more likely when a cuckoo had been seen near the nest, indicating that the decision uses more than the egg itself.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Host discrimination selects for egg mimicry in the parasite, and the parasite’s mimicry in turn selects for finer host discrimination — a reciprocal arms race with observable stages.

How NatureHQ reads it

The experiment that turned a plausible coevolutionary story into a measured one. The essential move is that the egg is the variable and the host’s decision is the outcome, so mimicry stops being something inferred from photographs and becomes something a host can be shown to act on.

  • One host species in one region; hosts elsewhere differ substantially in how readily they reject.
  • Model eggs are not cuckoo eggs, and match human-assessed appearance rather than avian visual perception.
  • Putting a forged egg in a real nest

    Cuckoo eggs resemble the eggs of their hosts. Is that resemblance doing anything, or does it just look striking to us?

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: Elsevier journalsPublished in an Elsevier journal.

doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(88)80269-0

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-03.