Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations,counter‐adaptations and outcomes

Avian parents and social insect colonies are victimized by interspecific brood parasites—cheats that procure costly care for their dependent offspring by leaving them in another species' nursery. Birds and insects defend themselves from attack by brood parasites; their defences in turn select counter‐strategies in the parasite, thus setting in motion antagonistic co‐evolution between the two parties. Despite their considerable taxonomic disparity, here we show striking parallels in the way that co‐evolution between brood parasites and their hosts proceeds in insects and birds. First, we identify five types of co‐evolutionary arms race from the empirical literature, which are common to both systems. These are: (a) directional co‐evolution of weaponry and armoury; (b) furtiveness in the parasite countered by strategies in the host to expose the parasite; (c) specialist parasites mimicking hosts who escape by diversifying their genetic signatures; (d) generalist parasites mimicking hosts who escape by favouring signatures that force specialization in the parasite; and (e) parasites using crypsis to evade recognition by hosts who then simplify their signatures to make the parasite more detectable. Arms races a and c are well characterized in the theoretical literature on co‐evolution, but the other types have received little or no formal theoretical attention. Empirical work suggests that hosts are doomed to lose arms races b and e to the parasite, in the sense that parasites typically evade host defences and successfully parasitize the nest. Nevertheless hosts may win when the co‐evolutionary trajectory follows arms race a, c or d. Next, we show that there are four common outcomes of the co‐evolutionary arms race for hosts. These are: (1) successful resistance; (2) the evolution of defence portfolios (or multiple lines of resistance); (3) acceptance of the parasite; and (4) tolerance of the parasite. The particular outcome is not determined by the type of preceding arms race but depends more on whether hosts or parasites control the co‐evolutionary trajectory: tolerance is an outcome that parasites inflict on hosts, whereas the other three outcomes are more dependent on properties intrinsic to the host species. Finally, our review highlights considerable interspecific variation in the complexity and depth of host defence portfolios. Whether this variation is adaptive or merely reflects evolutionary lag is unclear. We propose an adaptive explanation, which centres on the relative strength of two opposing processes: strategy‐facilitation, in which one line of host defence promotes the evolution of another form of resistance, and strategy‐blocking, in which one line of defence may relax selection on another so completely that it causes it to decay. We suggest that when strategy‐facilitation outweighs strategy‐blocking, hosts will possess complex defence portfolios and we identify selective conditions in which this is likely to be the case.     

The geographic structure of selection on a coevolving interaction between social parasitic wasps and their hosts hampers social evolution

Social parasites exploit societies, rather than organisms, and rear their brood in social insect colonies at the expense of their hosts, triggering a coevolutionary process that may affect host social structure. The resulting coevolutionary trajectories may be further altered by selection imposed by predators, which exploit the abundant resources concentrated in these nests. Here, we show that geographic differences in selection imposed by predators affects the structure of selection on coevolving hosts and their social parasites. In a multiyear study, we monitored the fate of the annual breeding attempts of the solitary nesting foundresses of Polistes biglumis wasps in four geographically distinct populations that varied in levels of attack by the congeneric social parasite, P. atrimandibularis. Foundress fitness depended mostly on whether, during the long founding phase, a colony was invaded by social parasites or attacked by predators. Foundresses from each population differed in morphological traits and reproductive tactics that were consistent with selection imposed by their natural enemies and in ways that may affect host sociality. In turn, parasite traits were consistent with selection imposed locally by hosts, implying a geographic mosaic of coevolution in this brood parasitic interaction.     

Coevolutionary interactions in a host–parasite system

Interactions between parasitic cuckoos and their hosts represent a classic example of coevolution, where adaptations in the parasite to exploit the host select for defences, which in turn select for new parasite adaptations. Current interactions between the two parties may be at an evolutionary equilibrium or, alternatively, a coevolutionary arms race may be taking place. By taking into account the effect of gene flow in 15 European magpie ( Pica pica ) populations, we studied the coevolutionary interactions with its brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo ( Clamator glandarius ). Our results suggest that, in Europe, magpies and cuckoos are engaged in an ongoing coevolutionary process because, despite controlling for the large amounts of gene flow among different magpie populations, we still found a positive relationship between host defence (i.e. foreign egg recognition and rejection) and parasite selection pressure.     

Coevolution of daily activity timing in a host–parasite system

Coevolutionary theories applied in the study of host–parasite systems indicate that lineages exhibit progressive trends in response to reciprocal selective pressures. Avian brood parasites have generated intense interest as models for coevolutionary processes. Similar to avian cuckoos, Polistes wasp social parasites usurp a nest and exploit the parental care of a congeneric species to rear their own brood. In the present study, we show a coevolutionary arms race in the daily activity pattern in a Polistes host–parasite pair. We measured the daily activity rate, in constant laboratory conditions, of both host and parasite females during the period in which nest usurpations occur. The parasites showed a hyperkinesis in the middle of the day. As the field observations suggested, this mid-day activity is used to perform host nest usurpation attempts. Timing the usurpations allows the parasite to maximize its usurpation attempts during daytime when the host defence is lower. A field comparison of host presence on the nest in two populations with different parasitism rates showed that populations under strong parasitic pressure exhibit timing counteradaptations to optimize nest defence. This study provides the first example of a mutual coadaptation in timing activity in a parasite–host system.  © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2009, 96 , 399–405.     

The coevolutionary dynamics of obligate ant social parasite systems--between prudence and antagonism

In this synthesis we apply coevolutionary models to the interactions between socially parasitic ants and their hosts. Obligate social parasite systems are ideal models for coevolution, because the close phylogenetic relationship between these parasites and their hosts results in similar evolutionary potentials, thus making mutual adaptations in a stepwise fashion especially likely to occur. The evolutionary dynamics of host-parasite interactions are influenced by a number of parameters, for example the parasite's transmission mode and rate, the genetic structure of host and parasite populations, the antagonists' migration rates, and the degree of mutual specialisation. For the three types of obligate ant social parasites, queen-tolerant and queen-intolerant inquilines and slavemakers, several of these parameters, and thus the evolutionary trajectory, are likely to differ. Because of the fundamental differences in lifestyle between these social parasite systems, coevolution should further select for different traits in the parasites and their hosts. Queen-tolerant inquilines are true parasites that exert a low selection pressure on their host, because of their rarity and the fact that they do not conduct slave raids to replenish their labour force. Due to their high degree of specialisation and the potential for vertical transmission, coevolutionary theory would predict interactions between these workerless parasites and their hosts to become even more benign over time. Queen-intolerant inquilines that kill the host queen during colony take-over are best described as parasitoids, and their reproductive success is limited by the existing worker force of the invaded host nest. These parasites should therefore evolve strategies to best exploit this fixed resource. Slavemaking ants, by contrast, act as parasites only during colony foundation, while their frequent slave raids follow a predator prey dynamic. They often exploit a number of host species at a given site, and theory predicts that their associations are best described in terms of a highly antagonistic coevolutionary arms race.     

Great Spotted Cuckoos Frequently Lay Their Eggs While Their Magpie Host is Incubating

Species that suffer from brood parasitism face a considerable reduction in their fitness which selects for the evolution of host defences. To prevent parasitism, hosts can mob or attack brood parasites when they approach the host nest and block the access to the nest by sitting on the clutch. In turn, as a counter‐adaptation, brood parasites evolved secretive behaviours near their host nests. Here, we have studied great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius) egg‐laying behaviour and defence by their magpie (Pica pica) hosts inside the nest using continuous video recordings. We have found several surprising results that contradict some general assumptions. The most important is that most (71%) of the parasitic events by cuckoo females are completed while the magpie females are incubating. By staying in the nest, magpies force cuckoo females to lay their egg facing the high risk of being attacked by the incubating magpie (attack occurred in all but one of the events, n = 15). During these attacks, magpies pecked the cuckoo violently, but could never effectively avoid parasitism. These novel observations expand the sequence of adaptations and counter‐adaptations in the arms race between brood parasites and their hosts during the pre‐laying and laying periods.     

Selection for outbreeding in Varroa parasitising resistant honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies

Parasitism is expected to select for counter‐adaptations in the host: driving a coevolutionary arms race. However, human interference between honey bees (Apis mellifera) and Varroa mites removes the effect of natural selection and restricts the evolution of host counter‐adaptations. With full‐sibling mating common among Varroa, this can rapidly select for virulent, highly inbred, Varroa populations. We investigated how the evolution of host resistance could affect the infesting population of Varroa mites. We screened a Varroa‐resistant honey bee population near Toulouse, France, for a Varroa resistance trait: the inhibition of Varroa's reproduction in drone pupae. We then genotyped Varroa which had co‐infested a cell using microsatellites. Across all resistant honey bee colonies, Varroa's reproductive success was significantly higher in co‐infested cells but the distribution of Varroa between singly and multiply infested cells was not different from random. While there was a trend for increased reproductive success when Varroa of differing haplotypes co‐infested a cell, this was not significant. This suggests local mate competition, through the presence of another Varroa foundress in a pupal cell, may be enough to help Varroa overcome host resistance traits; with a critical mass of infesting Varroa overwhelming host resistance. However, the fitness trade‐offs associated with preferentially co‐infesting cells may be too high for Varroa to evolve a mechanism to identify already‐infested cells. The increased reproductive success of Varroa when co‐infesting resistant pupal cells may act as a release valve on the selective pressure for the evolution of counter resistance traits: helping to maintain a stable host–parasite relationship.     

Egg color variation,but not egg rejection behavior,changes in a cuckoo host breeding in the absence of brood parasitism

Interactions between parasitic cuckoos and their songbird hosts form a classical reciprocal “arms race,” and are an excellent model for understanding the process of coevolution. Changes in host egg coloration via the evolution of interclutch variation in egg color or intraclutch consistency in egg color are hypothesized counter adaptations that facilitate egg recognition and thus limit brood parasitism. Whether these antiparasitism strategies are maintained when the selective pressure of parasitism is relaxed remains debated. However, introduced species provide unique opportunities for testing the direction and extent of natural selection on phenotypic trait maintenance and variation. Here, we investigated egg rejection behavior and egg color polymorphism in the red‐billed leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea), a common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) host, in a population introduced to Hawaii 100 years ago (breeding without cuckoos) and a native population in China (breeding with cuckoos). We found that egg rejection ability was equally strong in both the native and the introduced populations, but levels of interclutch variation and intraclutch consistency in egg color in the native population were higher than in the introduced population. This suggests that egg rejection behavior in hosts can be maintained in the absence of brood parasitism and that egg appearance is maintained by natural selection as a counter adaptation to brood parasitism. This study provides rare evidence that host antiparasitism strategies can change under parasite‐relaxed conditions and reduced selection pressure.     

Modelling the arms race in avian brood parasitism

In brood parasitism, interactions between a parasite and its host lead to a co-evolutionary process called an arms race, in which evolutionary progress on one side provokes a further response on the other side. The host evolves defensive means to reduce the impact of parasitism, while the parasite evolves means to counter the host's defence. To gain insights into the co-evolutionary process of the arms race, a model is developed and analysed, in which the host's defence and the parasite's counterdefence are assumed to be genetically determined. First, the effect of parasite counterdefence on host defence is analysed. I show that parasite counterdefence can critically affect the establishment of host defence, giving rise to three situations in the equilibrium state: The host shows (1) no defence, (2) an intermediate level of defence or (3) perfect defence. Based on these results, the evolution of parasite counterdefence is considered in connection with host defence. It is suggested that the parasite can evolve counterdefence to a certain degree, but once it has established counterdefence beyond this, the host gives up its defence against parasitism provided the defence entails some cost to perform. Dynamic aspects of selection pressure are crucial for these results. Based on these results, I propose a hypothetical evolutionary sequence in the arms race, along which interactions between the host and parasite proceed.     

THE DYNAMICS OF RECIPROCAL SELECTIVE SWEEPS OF HOST RESISTANCE AND A PARASITE COUNTER‐ADAPTATION IN DROSOPHILA

Host–parasite coevolution can result in consecutive selective sweeps of host resistance alleles and parasite counter‐adaptations. To illustrate the dynamics of this important but little studied form of coevolution, we have modeled an ongoing arms race between Drosophila melanogaster and the vertically transmitted sigma virus, using parameters we estimated in the field. We integrate these results with previous work showing that the spread of a resistance allele of the ref(2)P gene in the host was followed by the spread of a virus genotype, which overcomes this resistance. In line with these observations, our model predicts that there can be rapid selective sweeps in both the host and parasite, which can drive large changes in the prevalence of infection. The virus will tend to be ahead in the arms race, as incomplete dominance slows down host adaptation and selection for host resistance is weaker than selection for parasites to overcome resistance—the “life‐dinner” principle. This asymmetry in the adaptation rates results in a partial sweep of the host resistance allele, as it loses its advantage part way through the selective sweep. This well‐understood natural system illustrates how the outcome of host–parasite coevolution is determined by different population genetic parameters in the field.