Mary Caswell Stoddard

Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird's eye

Cuckoo–host interactions provide classical examples of coevolution. Cuckoos place hosts under selection to detect and reject foreign eggs, while host defences result in the evolution of host-egg mimicry in cuckoos. Despite a long history of research, egg pattern mimicry has never been objectively quantified, and so its coevolution with host defences has not been properly assessed. Here, we use digital image analysis and modelling of avian vision to quantify the level of pattern mimicry in eight host species of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and their respective cuckoo host-races. We measure a range of pattern attributes, including marking size, diversity in size, contrast, coverage and dispersion. This new technique reveals hitherto unnoticed sophistication in egg pattern mimicry. We show that various features of host egg pattern are mimicked by the eggs of their respective cuckoo host-races, and that cuckoos have evolved better pattern mimicry for host species that exhibit stronger egg rejection. Pattern differs relatively more between eggs of different host species than between their respective cuckoo host-races. We suggest that cuckoos may have more ‘average’ markings in order to be able to use subsidiary hosts. Our study sheds new light on cuckoo–host coevolution and illustrates a new technique for quantifying animal markings with respect to the relevant animal visual system.

AVIAN VISION AND THE EVOLUTION OF EGG COLOR MIMICRY IN THE COMMON CUCKOO

Coevolutionary arms races are a potent force in evolution, and brood parasite–host dynamics provide classical examples. Different host‐races of the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, lay eggs in the nests of other species, leaving all parental care to hosts. Cuckoo eggs often (but not always) appear to match remarkably the color and pattern of host eggs, thus reducing detection by hosts. However, most studies of egg mimicry focus on human assessments or reflectance spectra, which fail to account for avian vision. Here, we use discrimination and tetrachromatic color space modeling of bird vision to quantify egg background and spot color mimicry in the common cuckoo and 11 of its principal hosts, and we relate this to egg rejection by different hosts. Egg background color and luminance are strongly mimicked by most cuckoo host‐races, and mimicry is better when hosts show strong rejection. We introduce a novel measure of color mimicry—“color overlap”—and show that cuckoo and host background colors increasingly overlap in avian color space as hosts exhibit stronger rejection. Finally, cuckoos with better background color mimicry also have better pattern mimicry. Our findings reveal new information about egg mimicry that would be impossible to derive by the human eye.

Studying Primate Color: Towards Visual System-dependent Methods

Primates exhibit a striking diversity of colors and patterns in their pelage and skin markings, used in functions as diverse as camouflage to sexual signaling. In studying primate colors, it is important to adopt approaches not based on human assessment wherever possible, and that preferably take account of the visual system of the appropriate receiver(s). Here, we outline some of the main techniques for recording the colors exhibited and encountered by primates, including the use of digital photography and reflectance spectrometry. We go on to discuss the main approaches for analyzing the data obtained, including those not linked to a particular visual system, such as direct analyses of reflectance spectra. We argue that researchers should strive for analyses based on the visual system of the relevant receiver, and outline some of the main modeling approaches that can be used, such as color space and discrimination threshold modeling. By analyzing color measures with respect to specific visual systems, field studies can link behavioral ecology to the visual and cognitive sciences, and move toward descriptions of signal information content that incorporate elements of receiver psychology. This in turn should lead to a greater understanding of the detection and interpretation of signals by receivers, and hence their likely use in decision making.

Pattern recognition algorithm reveals how birds evolve individual egg pattern signatures

Pattern-based identity signatures are commonplace in the animal kingdom, but how they are recognized is poorly understood. Here we develop a computer vision tool for analysing visual patterns, NATUREPATTERNMATCH, which breaks new ground by mimicking visual and cognitive processes known to be involved in recognition tasks. We apply this tool to a long-standing question about the evolution of recognizable signatures. The common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) is a notorious cheat that sneaks its mimetic eggs into nests of other species. Can host birds fight back against cuckoo forgery by evolving highly recognizable signatures? Using NATUREPATTERNMATCH, we show that hosts subjected to the best cuckoo mimicry have evolved the most recognizable egg pattern signatures. Theory predicts that effective pattern signatures should be simultaneously replicable, distinctive and complex. However, our results reveal that recognizable signatures need not incorporate all three of these features. Moreover, different hosts have evolved effective signatures in diverse ways.

How colorful are fruits? Limited color diversity in fleshy fruits on local and global scales.

The colors of fleshy fruits are considered to be a signal to seed-dispersing animals, but their diversity remains poorly understood. Using an avian color space to derive a sensory morphospace for fruit color, we tested four hypotheses of fruit color diversity: fruit colors occupy a limited area of the color space; they are less diverse than flower colors; fruit colors within localities are similar to each other; and fruit color diversity reflects phylogeny. The global fruit color diversity of 948 primarily bird-dispersed plant species and the color diversity of localities were compared with null models of random, unconstrained evolution of fruit color. Fruit color diversity was further compared with the diversity of 1300 flower colors. Tests of phylogenetic effects on fruit color were used to assess the degree of correspondence with phylogeny. Global and local fruit color diversity was limited compared with null models and fruits have achieved only half the color diversity of flowers. Interestingly, we found little indication of phylogenetic conservatism. Constraints resulting from the chemical properties of pigments probably limit global fruit and flower color diversity. Different types of selection on fruits and flowers may further explain the smaller color diversity of fruits.

The biology of color

In living color Animals live in a colorful world, but we rarely stop to think about how this color is produced and perceived, or how it evolved. Cuthill et al. review how color is used for social signals between individual animals and how it affects interactions with parasites, predators, and the physical environment. New approaches are elucidating aspects of animal coloration, from the requirements for complex cognition and perception mechanisms to the evolutionary dynamics surrounding its development and diversification. Science, this issue p. eaan0221 BACKGROUND The interdisciplinary field of animal coloration is growing rapidly, spanning questions about the diverse ways that animals use pigments and structures to generate color, the underlying genetics and epigenetics, the perception of color, how color information is integrated with information from other senses, and general principles underlying color’s evolution and function. People working in the field appreciate linkages between these parallel lines of enquiry, but outsiders need the easily navigable roadmap that we provide here. ADVANCES In the past 20 years, the field of animal coloration research has been propelled forward by technological advances that include spectrophotometry, digital imaging, computational neuroscience, innovative laboratory and field studies, and large-scale comparative analyses, which are allowing new questions to be asked. For example, we can now pose questions about the evolution of camouflage based on what a prey’s main predator can see, and we can start to appreciate that gene changes underlying color production have occurred in parallel in unrelated species. Knowledge of the production, perception, and evolutionary function of coloration is poised to make contributions to areas as diverse as medicine, security, clothing, and the military, but we need to take stock before moving forward. OUTLOOK Here, a group of evolutionary biologists, behavioral ecologists, psychologists, optical physicists, visual physiologists, geneticists, and anthropologists review this diverse area of science, daunting to the outsider, and set out what we believe are the key questions for the future. These are how nanoscale structures are used to manipulate light; how dynamic changes in coloration occur on different time scales; the genetics of coloration (including key innovations and the extent of parallel changes in different lineages); alternative perceptions of color by different species (including wavelengths that we cannot see, such as ultraviolet); how color, pattern, and motion interact; and how color works together with other modalities, especially odor. From an adaptive standpoint, color can serve several functions, and the resulting patterns frequently represent a trade-off among different evolutionary drivers, some of which are nonvisual (e.g., photoprotection). These trade-offs can vary between individuals within the same population, and color can be altered strategically on different time scales to serve different purposes. Lastly, interspecific differences in coloration, sometimes even observable in the fossil record, give insights into trait evolution. The biology of color is a field that typifies modern research: curiosity-led, technology-driven, multilevel, interdisciplinary, and integrative. Spectacular changes to color and morphology in a cuttlefish. Color can conceal or reveal. The giant Australian cuttlefish (Sepia apama) alters the relative size of its pigment-bearing chromatophores and warps its muscular skin to switch between camouflage mode (top) and communication mode (bottom) in under a second. Photos:

Molecular diversity, metabolic transformation, and evolution of carotenoid feather pigments in cotingas (Aves: Cotingidae).

Carotenoid pigments were extracted from 29 feather patches from 25 species of cotingas (Cotingidae) representing all lineages of the family with carotenoid plumage coloration. Using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), mass spectrometry, chemical analysis, and 1H-NMR, 16 different carotenoid molecules were documented in the plumages of the cotinga family. These included common dietary xanthophylls (lutein and zeaxanthin), canary xanthophylls A and B, four well known and broadly distributed avian ketocarotenoids (canthaxanthin, astaxanthin, α-doradexanthin, and adonixanthin), rhodoxanthin, and seven 4-methoxy-ketocarotenoids. Methoxy-ketocarotenoids were found in 12 species within seven cotinga genera, including a new, previously undescribed molecule isolated from the Andean Cock-of-the-Rock Rupicola peruviana, 3′-hydroxy-3-methoxy-β,β-carotene-4-one, which we name rupicolin. The diversity of cotinga plumage carotenoid pigments is hypothesized to be derived via four metabolic pathways from lutein, zeaxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin, and β-carotene. All metabolic transformations within the four pathways can be described by six or seven different enzymatic reactions. Three of these reactions are shared among three precursor pathways and are responsible for eight different metabolically derived carotenoid molecules. The function of cotinga plumage carotenoid diversity was analyzed with reflectance spectrophotometry of plumage patches and a tetrahedral model of avian color visual perception. The evolutionary history of the origin of this diversity is analyzed phylogenetically. The color space analyses document that the evolutionarily derived metabolic modifications of dietary xanthophylls have resulted in the creation of distinctive orange-red and purple visual colors.

Variation in carotenoid-protein interaction in bird feathers produces novel plumage coloration.

Light absorption by carotenoids is known to vary substantially with the shape or conformation of the pigment molecule induced by the molecular environment, but the role of interactions between carotenoid pigments and the proteins to which they are bound, and the resulting impact on organismal coloration, remain unclear. Here, we present a spectroscopic investigation of feathers from the brilliant red scarlet ibis (Eudocimus ruber, Threskiornithidae), the orange-red summer tanager (Piranga rubra, Cardinalidae) and the violet-purple feathers of the white-browed purpletuft (Iodopleura isabellae, Tityridae). Despite their striking differences in colour, all three of these feathers contain canthaxanthin (β,β-carotene-4,4′-dione) as their primary pigment. Reflectance and resonance Raman (rR) spectroscopy were used to investigate the induced molecular structural changes and carotenoid–protein interactions responsible for the different coloration in these plumage samples. The results demonstrate a significant variation between species in the peak frequency of the strong ethylenic vibration (ν1) peak in the rR spectra, the most significant of which is found in I. isabellae feathers and is correlated with a red-shift in canthaxanthin absorption that results in violet reflectance. Neither polarizability of the protein environment nor planarization of the molecule upon binding can entirely account for the full extent of the colour shift. Therefore, we suggest that head-to-tail molecular alignment (i.e. J-aggregation) of the protein-bound carotenoid molecules is an additional factor.

Egg Speckling Patterns Do Not Advertise Offspring Quality or Influence Male Provisioning in Great Tits

Many passerine birds lay white eggs with reddish brown speckles produced by protoporphyrin pigment. However, the function of these spots is contested. Recently, the sexually selected eggshell coloration (SSEC) hypothesis proposed that eggshell color is a sexually selected signal through which a female advertises her quality (and hence the potential quality of her future young) to her male partner, thereby encouraging him to contribute more to breeding attempts. We performed a test of the SSEC hypothesis in a common passerine, the great tit Parus major. We used a double cross-fostering design to determine whether males change their provisioning behavior based on eggshell patterns they observe at the nest. We also tested the assumption that egg patterning reflects female and/or offspring quality. Because birds differ from humans in their color and pattern perception, we used digital photography and models of bird vision to quantify egg patterns objectively. Neither male provisioning nor chick growth was related to the pattern of eggs males observed during incubation. Although heavy females laid paler, less speckled eggs, these eggs did not produce chicks that grew faster. Therefore, we conclude that the SSEC hypothesis is an unlikely explanation for the evolution of egg speckling in great tits.

Imperfectly camouflaged avian eggs: artefact or adaptation?

For many birds, the fight for survival begins at the egg stage: avoiding predation is paramount. At a broad phylogenetic level, selection by predators for egg camouflage appears to be the primary driver of variation in egg colouration and patterning. Despite this, experiments at fine-scale taxonomic levels have largely failed to find support for adaptively camouflaged egg appearance. How are we to resolve this baffling contradiction? Here we present and evaluate five explanations which are not mutually exclusive and which may explain why eggs appear imperfectly camouflaged at the genus or species level. First, imperfect camouflage may be an artefact of imperfect measurements. In studies of egg camouflage, researchers have consistently neglected to account for predator vision, and only rarely have egg appearance and camouflage been quantified carefully and objectively. Recalibrating our assessment of egg camouflage may answer many questions, but it is unlikely to wholly explain why many eggs do not appear seamlessly cryptic. Instead, imperfect camouflage may stem from mechanistic constraints on pigment production in some avian lineages or may be a consequence of selection for anti-microbial protection. Or perhaps the manifold demands of the egg and selection for functions other than protective concealment have tugged the egg phenotype away from an ideally cryptic appearance. Finally, imperfect egg camouflage may occur if other forms of defence are simply more effective, or if a diverse brigade of predators imposes different selective pressures on egg appearance. A combination of these factors is likely involved. Avian eggs provide an excellent model system for investigating animal camouflage, and recent advances in numerous fields make this area particularly ripe for future research.