Limits...
Behaviour in captivity predicts some aspects of natural behaviour, but not others, in a wild cricket population.

Fisher DN, James A, Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2015)

Bottom Line: Laboratory activity and exploration predicted the expression of their equivalent behaviours in the wild, but shyness did not.Traits in the wild were predictably influenced by environmental factors such as temperature and sunlight, but only activity showed appreciable within-individual repeatability.This suggests that some behaviours typically studied as personality traits can be accurately assayed in captivity, but the expression of others may be highly context-specific.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9FE, UK.

ABSTRACT
Examining the relevance of 'animal personality' involves linking consistent among- and within-individual behavioural variation to fitness in the wild. Studies aiming to do this typically assay personality in captivity and rely on the assumption that measures of traits in the laboratory reflect their expression in nature. We examined this rarely tested assumption by comparing laboratory and field measurements of the behaviour of wild field crickets (Gryllus campestris) by continuously monitoring individual behaviour in nature, and repeatedly capturing the same individuals and measuring their behaviour in captivity. We focused on three traits that are frequently examined in personality studies: shyness, activity and exploration. All of them showed repeatability in the laboratory. Laboratory activity and exploration predicted the expression of their equivalent behaviours in the wild, but shyness did not. Traits in the wild were predictably influenced by environmental factors such as temperature and sunlight, but only activity showed appreciable within-individual repeatability. This suggests that some behaviours typically studied as personality traits can be accurately assayed in captivity, but the expression of others may be highly context-specific. Our results highlight the importance of validating the relevance of laboratory behavioural assays to analogous traits measured in the wild.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Laboratory shyness and log of wild shyness (logged to aid viewing). The line is from a simple linear model of wild shyness and laboratory shyness, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was no relationship between shyness in the laboratory and shyness in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = −4.37 × 10−5 ± −6.08 × 10−4−7.36 × 10−4).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590455&req=5

RSPB20150708F1: Laboratory shyness and log of wild shyness (logged to aid viewing). The line is from a simple linear model of wild shyness and laboratory shyness, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was no relationship between shyness in the laboratory and shyness in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = −4.37 × 10−5 ± −6.08 × 10−4−7.36 × 10−4).

Mentions: Laboratory shyness scores did not influence the wild shyness scores (figure 1; PDM = −4.37 × 10−5, LCRI = −6.08 × 10−4, UCRI = 7.36 × 10−4, pMCMC = 0.87). The interaction between laboratory shyness and the timespan between the laboratory and wild shyness scores was not important (PDM = 1.31 × 10−5, LCRI = −1.40 × 10−4, UCRI = 1.49 × 10−4, pMCMC = 0.90). The timespan between the laboratory and wild shyness scores did not influence the wild shyness score (PDM =−2.82 × 10−2, LCRI = −9.10 × 10−2, UCRI = 1.29 × 10−1, pMCMC = 0.82).Figure 1.


Behaviour in captivity predicts some aspects of natural behaviour, but not others, in a wild cricket population.

Fisher DN, James A, Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2015)

Laboratory shyness and log of wild shyness (logged to aid viewing). The line is from a simple linear model of wild shyness and laboratory shyness, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was no relationship between shyness in the laboratory and shyness in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = −4.37 × 10−5 ± −6.08 × 10−4−7.36 × 10−4).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590455&req=5

RSPB20150708F1: Laboratory shyness and log of wild shyness (logged to aid viewing). The line is from a simple linear model of wild shyness and laboratory shyness, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was no relationship between shyness in the laboratory and shyness in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = −4.37 × 10−5 ± −6.08 × 10−4−7.36 × 10−4).
Mentions: Laboratory shyness scores did not influence the wild shyness scores (figure 1; PDM = −4.37 × 10−5, LCRI = −6.08 × 10−4, UCRI = 7.36 × 10−4, pMCMC = 0.87). The interaction between laboratory shyness and the timespan between the laboratory and wild shyness scores was not important (PDM = 1.31 × 10−5, LCRI = −1.40 × 10−4, UCRI = 1.49 × 10−4, pMCMC = 0.90). The timespan between the laboratory and wild shyness scores did not influence the wild shyness score (PDM =−2.82 × 10−2, LCRI = −9.10 × 10−2, UCRI = 1.29 × 10−1, pMCMC = 0.82).Figure 1.

Bottom Line: Laboratory activity and exploration predicted the expression of their equivalent behaviours in the wild, but shyness did not.Traits in the wild were predictably influenced by environmental factors such as temperature and sunlight, but only activity showed appreciable within-individual repeatability.This suggests that some behaviours typically studied as personality traits can be accurately assayed in captivity, but the expression of others may be highly context-specific.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9FE, UK.

ABSTRACT
Examining the relevance of 'animal personality' involves linking consistent among- and within-individual behavioural variation to fitness in the wild. Studies aiming to do this typically assay personality in captivity and rely on the assumption that measures of traits in the laboratory reflect their expression in nature. We examined this rarely tested assumption by comparing laboratory and field measurements of the behaviour of wild field crickets (Gryllus campestris) by continuously monitoring individual behaviour in nature, and repeatedly capturing the same individuals and measuring their behaviour in captivity. We focused on three traits that are frequently examined in personality studies: shyness, activity and exploration. All of them showed repeatability in the laboratory. Laboratory activity and exploration predicted the expression of their equivalent behaviours in the wild, but shyness did not. Traits in the wild were predictably influenced by environmental factors such as temperature and sunlight, but only activity showed appreciable within-individual repeatability. This suggests that some behaviours typically studied as personality traits can be accurately assayed in captivity, but the expression of others may be highly context-specific. Our results highlight the importance of validating the relevance of laboratory behavioural assays to analogous traits measured in the wild.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus