Host | Locality | Model | Mimic | Aggression |
|---|
| | | Species | Presence | Morph | Frequency | Calls | Attacks |
|---|
RW | UKa | Sparrowhawk | 1 | Gray | 99 | 50 | – |
| | | Kestrel | 1 | Rufous | 1 | 38 | – |
GRW | CZ | Sparrowhawk | 1 | Gray | 90 | 65 | 17 |
| | | Kestrel | 0 | Rufous | 10 | 79 | 21 |
GRW | SK | Sparrowhawk | 0 | Gray | 60 | – | 76 |
| | | Kestrel | 1 | Rufous | 40 | – | 24 |
GRW | HU | Sparrowhawk | 0 | Gray | 40 | 93 | 50 |
| | | Kestrel | 1 | Rufous | 60 | 97 | 73 |
- a Estimated according to information from [5]: 20 years data, each year ~10 cuckoo females, total “only one rufous female in two of the years”, i.e., 2/200 = 1%.
- Localities were situated in United Kingdom (UK; [5]), Czech Republic (CZ; [4]), Hungary (HU; [4]) and Slovakia (SK; this study). Data are ordered from gray-morph dominated localities to those where the rufous-morph is more common. The presence (0/1) of models for each cuckoo morph (N. B. Davies, M. Honza, pers. comm.), frequency of each cuckoo morph (%), and responses of reed warblers (RW) and great reed warblers (GRW) to each morph are shown. Responses were measured either as proportion of host pairs that performed particular behavior (UK, CZ, HU), or as a proportion of contact attacks from the gray–vs.–rufous cuckoo paired treatment (SK, this study; tested pairs attacked each dummy at least once, thus, eliminating information potential of categorical assessment of host behavior, see also Table 1). See Discussion for details.
