N31
2015 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 14, No. 2
J.A. Fowler Neal and V. Rolland
A Potential Case of Brood Parasitism by Eastern Bluebirds on
House Sparrows
Jessica A. Fowler Neal1 and Virginie Rolland1,*
Abstract - Sialia sialis (Eastern Bluebird) and Passer domesticus (House Sparrow) are common
cavity-nesting birds that can compete with each other for nest sites in habitats where they overlap.
Both species occasionally lay eggs in the nests of conspecifics, but evidence of interspecific brood
parasitism (IBP) is lacking. Here we report the first detailed case of an Eastern Bluebird laying an egg
in a House Sparrow nest and discuss potential explanations, including intentional IBP, IBP by default,
and failed nest usurpation.
Introduction. Some female birds lay 1 or more of their eggs in the nest of another female
(Payne 1977). This phenomenon, known as brood parasitism, is a reproductive strategy
that females adopt to increase their reproductive output by laying more eggs than
would constitute a typical clutch size, thus producing more offspring than they would
otherwise be able to raise (Robert and Sorci 2001). Brood parasitism has 2 forms: interspecific
brood parasitism (IBP) in which eggs are laid in a nest of another species, and
conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) where eggs are laid in a nest of the same species.
Although a few species are obligate interspecific brood parasites, e.g., Molothrus ater
(Bodaert) (Brown-headed Cowbird) and Cuculus canorus L. (Eurasian Cuckoo), CBP has
been reported in at least 236 avian species (Yom-Tov 2001), including in Sialia sialis L.
(Eastern Bluebird, hereafter Bluebird) (Gowaty and Bridges 1991, Meek et al. 1994) and
Passer domesticus L. (House Sparrow; hereafter Sparrow) (Kendra et al. 1988). Neither
Bluebirds nor Sparrows have been known to practice IBP. An anecdotal report suggested
IBP by Bluebirds on Sparrows (Gowaty and Plissner 1998) but observations and circumstances
were not documented. We report here the details of a case of functional brood
parasitism by Bluebirds on Sparrows and discuss the potential causes of this occurrence.
Field-site description and methods. We detected this case of IBP in 2013 while conducting
a demographic study of Bluebirds and other cavity-nesting species in a nest-box trail
located along CR 766, about 10 km north of Jonesboro, AR. The 178 nest boxes on our trail
were established in 2003. Most boxes were placed at ~100-m intervals along roadsides,
fences, tree lines, or forest edges, and faced yards, hay fields, or pastures for an approximate
density of 20–21 nest boxes per km2.
Throughout our study, we routinely inspected all nest boxes every 2–5 days from mid-
March through late August (nesting period of both Bluebirds and Sparrows) and recorded
nest contents. In April 2012 and 2013, Bluebirds occupied 62–64% of the monitored nest
boxes; 3–5% of nest boxes were used by Poecile carolinensis (Audubon) (Carolina
Chickadee), Baeolophus bicolor L. (Tufted Titmouse), Thryothorus ludovicianus (Latham)
(Carolina Wren), and Glaucomys volans L. (Flying Squirrel). Sparrows attempted to nest in
8% of the nest boxes (usually closer to houses) throughout each season. Active competition
between Sparrows and Bluebirds sometimes resulted in Bluebird fatalities, including in the
focal nest box in February 2012. The focal nest box (35°56'4''N, 90°41'7''W), was located
1 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, PO Box 599, State University, AR
72467. *Corresponding author - Jessica.A.Fowler.Neal@gmail.com.
Manuscript Editor: Karl E. Miller
Notes of the Southeastern Naturalist, Issue 14/2, 2015
2015 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 14, No. 2
N32
J.A. Fowler Neal and V. Rolland
in a mowed yard ~50 m from a house, 100 m from a forested area, and 2 m from a hedgerow
of mixed shrubs. Sparrows consistently occupied this box and the nearest 2 boxes with
no observed successful Bluebird attempt since 2009. We typically controlled the spread of
Sparrows into the site by removing their nests, eggs, and occasionally adult Sparrows from
nest boxes.
Observations. From 15 March to 11 April, Sparrow nesting attempts were removed
every 2–3 d from the focal and nearest 2 nest boxes. The next 4 nest boxes on the road
(650–900 m from the focal box) were occupied by Bluebirds, Tufted Titmice, and Carolina
Chickadees starting 11 April. On 13 April, we found a new Sparrow nest in the focal nest
box, but allowed the nesting attempt to continue so that we could trap the adults at a later
date. On 15 April, we found 2 Sparrow eggs that we left in place (Fig. 1A), but we were
unsuccessful in trapping the adults inside the nest box. When we returned on 19 April to
attempt to catch the adults again, the nest contained 5 Sparrow eggs and a single Bluebird
egg (Fig. 1B). A pair of unbanded Bluebirds was perched on a power line about 20 m away
from the nest box, but they did not attempt to drive away the Sparrows when they entered
the nest box. On 21 April, we found that all of the eggs were warm, including the Bluebird
egg (Fig. 1C). We checked the nest every 2 d, and the first Sparrow egg hatched on 29 April
(Fig. 1D). On 10 May, we collected the unhatched but intact Bluebird egg and euthanized
5 well-developed Sparrow nestlings. We opened the Bluebird egg and found no signs of
development. We did not observe adult Bluebirds near this particular nest box again until
an unbanded pair initiated a nest there in late May.
Discussion. This report is the first to document a case of functional IBP by Eastern
Bluebirds, providing more insight into this rare phenomenon reported previously only
anecdotally. We believe this apparent IBP was likely a misdirected case of CBP, i.e., IBP
by default. CBP occurs in ~10% of Bluebird nests (Meek et al. 1994), most commonly in
response to limited nest availability or nest depredation during the laying period (Lyon and
Eadie 2008). However, the nearest (810 m) known Bluebird nest was already incubating a
clutch of 5 eggs when the focal nest box was parasitized. This distance and the occupancy of
the 3 nearest nest boxes by other bird species likely did not provide an opportunity for CBP
and may have led the Bluebird female to parasitize the focal Sparrow nest. Although our
Figure 1. Contents of a House Sparrow nest parasitized by an Eastern Bluebird in 2013. (A) 15 April:
two House Sparrow eggs; (B) 19 April and (C) 21 April: five House Sparrow eggs and one Eastern
Bluebird egg; (D) 29 April: first House Sparrow egg to hatch.
N33
2015 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 14, No. 2
J.A. Fowler Neal and V. Rolland
observation could have been a case of intentional IBP, it seems unlikely given the recognizable
difference in nest shape and material between Sparrow and Bluebird nests. Finally, we
cannot rule out the possibility of a failed attempt at nest usurpation by Bluebirds, but that
also seems unlikely given the lack of Bluebird nest material in the focal box and the Sparrow’s
persistence in rebuilding its nest after we repeatedly removed nesting material over
the course of a month.
Also of note from this episode is that the Sparrows did not appear to reject the Bluebird
egg. It remained intact throughout the entire nesting period with no puncture marks
or obvious scratches, nor was it pushed to the side or buried in the nest material. Although
Sparrows reject roughly 30% of conspecific eggs, mainly based on egg-spot patterns rather
than color (Lopez de Hierro and Moreno-Rueda 2010), they may not have evolved strategies
to recognize and reject eggs of other species (Moksnes et al. 1991), such as the unpatterned
Bluebird egg.
In conclusion, although Bluebirds are well studied, functional IBP remains a poorly understood
aspect of their biology. Compared to previous anecdotal observations, our report
provides more details about the circumstances of this probable case of IBP by Bluebirds but
the data are still insufficient to conclude whether what we observed was true IBP, IBP by
default, or failed nest usurpation. Contributions from citizen scientists represent a valuable
opportunity to increase detection and understanding of rare phenomena (Cooper et al. 2012)
such as IBP by Bluebirds. We encourage individuals who monitor Bluebird nest boxes to
report their observations to programs such as NestWatch (nestwatch.org).
Acknowledgments. We thank M. Bobowski, B. Cansler, and E. Mizell for their precious
assistance in the field as well as T. Boves and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.
Our research was funded by the College of Science and Mathematics of Arkansas State
University (A-State). Our bird-handling protocol was approved by the A-State Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee.
Literature Cited
Cooper, C.B., W.M. Hochachka, and A.A. Dhondt. 2012. The opportunities and challenges of citizen
science as a tool for ecological research. Pp. 99–113, In J.L. Dickinson and R. Bonney (Eds.).
Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY.
Gowaty, P.A., and W.C. Bridges. 1991. Nestbox availability affects extra-pair fertilizations and conspecific
nest parasitism in Eastern Bluebirds, Sialia sialis. Animal Behavior 41:661–675.
Gowaty, P.A., and J.H. Plissner. 1998. Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis). Number 381, In A. Poole (Ed.).
The Birds of North America, American Ornithologists Union. Also available online at http://bna.
birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/381/. Accessed.
Kendra, P.E., R.R. Roland, and D.W. Tallamy. 1988. Conspecific brood parasitism in the House Sparrow.
Wilson Bulletin 100:80–90.
López de Hierro, M.D.G., and G. Moreno-Rueda. 2010. Egg-spot pattern rather than egg color affects
conspecific egg rejection in the House Sparrow. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
64:317–324.
Lyon, B.E., and J. Eadie. 2008. Conspecific brood parasitism in birds: A life-history perspective. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:343–363.
Meek, S.B., R.J. Robertson, and P.T. Boag. 1994. Extrapair paternity and intraspecific brood parasitism
in Eastern Bluebirds revealed by DNA fingerprinting. The Auk 111:739–744.
Moksnes, A., E. Røskaft, A.T. Braa, L. Korsnes, H.M. Lampe, and H.C. Pedersen. 1991. Behavioral
response of potential hosts toward artificial cuckoo eggs and du mmies. Behavior 116:64–89.
2015 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 14, No. 2
N34
J.A. Fowler Neal and V. Rolland
Payne, R.B. 1977. Ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and
Systematics 8:1–28.
Robert, M., and G. Sorci. 2001. The evolution of obligate interspecific brood parasitism in birds.
Behavioral Ecology 12:128–133.
Yom-Tov, Y. 2001. An updated list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism
in birds. Ibis 143:133–143.