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: 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.

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 activity and wild activity. The line is from a simple linear model of wild activity and laboratory activity, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was a significant, positive relationship between activity in the laboratory and activity in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = 5.98 ± 3.99−8.89).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

RSPB20150708F2: Laboratory activity and wild activity. The line is from a simple linear model of wild activity and laboratory activity, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was a significant, positive relationship between activity in the laboratory and activity in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = 5.98 ± 3.99−8.89).

Mentions: Laboratory activity level was positively related to level of activity in the wild (figure 2; PDM = 5.98, LCRI = 3.99, UCRI = 8.89, pMCMC < 0.01). The CRIs for interaction between the laboratory score and the time between the measures marginally overlapped zero (interaction: PDM = −0.99, LCRI = −2.18, UCRI = 0.09, pMCMC = 0.08), while the gap between measures negatively influenced wild activity level (PDM = −0.08, LCRI = −0.17, UCRI = −1.79 × 10−3, pMCMC = 0.04). The number of minutes a cricket was observed outside its burrow negatively influenced its activity score (PDM = −3.00 × 10−4, LCRI = −7.06 × 10−4, UCRI = −1.65 × 10−5, pMCMC = 0.04).Figure 2.


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 activity and wild activity. The line is from a simple linear model of wild activity and laboratory activity, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was a significant, positive relationship between activity in the laboratory and activity in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = 5.98 ± 3.99−8.89).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

RSPB20150708F2: Laboratory activity and wild activity. The line is from a simple linear model of wild activity and laboratory activity, the grey area indicates the standard errors around the estimate. There was a significant, positive relationship between activity in the laboratory and activity in the wild (PDM ± 95% CRIs = 5.98 ± 3.99−8.89).
Mentions: Laboratory activity level was positively related to level of activity in the wild (figure 2; PDM = 5.98, LCRI = 3.99, UCRI = 8.89, pMCMC < 0.01). The CRIs for interaction between the laboratory score and the time between the measures marginally overlapped zero (interaction: PDM = −0.99, LCRI = −2.18, UCRI = 0.09, pMCMC = 0.08), while the gap between measures negatively influenced wild activity level (PDM = −0.08, LCRI = −0.17, UCRI = −1.79 × 10−3, pMCMC = 0.04). The number of minutes a cricket was observed outside its burrow negatively influenced its activity score (PDM = −3.00 × 10−4, LCRI = −7.06 × 10−4, UCRI = −1.65 × 10−5, pMCMC = 0.04).Figure 2.

Bottom Line: 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.

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