Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- animal personality (2)
- bank voles (2)
- behavioral flexibility (2)
- coping styles (2)
- exploratory-behavior (2)
- mustelid predation (2)
- social information (2)
- stress (2)
- trade-offs (2)
- voles clethrionomys-glareolus (2)
Institute
Personality-dependent space use and movement might be crucially influencing ecological interactions, giving way to individual niche specialization. This new approach challenges classical niche theory with potentially great ecological consequences, but so far has only scarce empirical support. Here, we investigated if and how consistent inter-individual differences in behavior predict space use and movement patterns in free-ranging bank voles (Myodes glareolus) and thereby contribute to individual niche specialization. Individuals were captured and marked from three different subpopulations in North-East Germany. Inter-individual differences in boldness and exploration were quantified via repeated standardized tests directly in the field after capture. Subsequently, space use and movement patterns of a representative sample of the behavioral variation (n=21 individuals) were monitored via automated VHF telemetry for a period of four days, yielding on average 384 locations per individual. Bolder individuals occupied larger home ranges and core areas (estimated via kernel density analyses), moved longer distances, spatially overlapped with fewer conspecifics and preferred different microhabitats based on vegetation cover compared to shyer individuals. We found evidence for personality-dependent space use, movement, and occupation of individual spatial niches in bank voles. Thus, besides dietary niche specialization also spatial dimensions of ecological niches vary among individuals within populations, which may have important consequences for ecological interactions within- and between species.
Animal movements arise from complex interactions of individuals with their environment, including both conspecific and heterospecific individuals. Animals may be attracted to each other for mating, social foraging, or information gain, or may keep at a distance from others to avoid aggressive encounters related to, e.g., interference competition, territoriality, or predation. With modern tracking technology, more datasets are emerging that allow to investigate fine‐scale interactions between free‐ranging individuals from movement data, however, few methods exist to disentangle fine‐scale behavioural responses of interacting individuals when these are highly individual‐specific.
In a framework of step‐selection functions, we related movements decisions of individuals to dynamic occurrence distributions of other individuals obtained through kriging of their movement paths. Using simulated data, we tested the method's ability to identify various combinations of attraction, avoidance, and neutrality between individuals, including asymmetric (i.e. non‐mutual) behaviours. Additionally, we analysed radio‐telemetry data from concurrently tracked small rodents (bank vole, Myodes glareolus) to test whether our method could detect biologically plausible behaviours.
We found that our method was able to successfully detect and distinguish between fine‐scale interactions (attraction, avoidance, neutrality), even when these were asymmetric between individuals. The method worked best when confounding factors were taken into account in the step‐selection function. However, even when failing to do so (e.g. due to missing information), interactions could be reasonably identified. In bank voles, responses depended strongly on the sexes of the involved individuals and matched expectations.
Our approach can be combined with conventional uses of step‐selection functions to tease apart the various drivers of movement, e.g. the influence of the physical and the social environment. In addition, the method is particularly useful in studying interactions when responses are highly individual‐specific, i.e. vary between and towards different individuals, making our method suitable for both single‐species and multi‐species analyses (e.g. in the context of predation or competition).
Between-individual differences in coping with stress encompass neurophysiological, cognitive and behavioural reactions. The coping style model proposes two alternative response patterns to challenges that integrate these types of reactions. The “proactive strategy” combines a general fight-or-flight response and inflexibility in learning with a relatively low HPA (hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal) response. The “reactive strategy” includes risk aversion, flexibility in learning and an enhanced HPA response. Although numerous studies have investigated the possible covariance of cognitive, behavioural and physiological responses, findings are still mixed. In the present study, we tested the predictions of the coping style model in an unselected population of bank voles (Myodes glareolus) (N = 70). We measured the voles’ boldness, activity, speed and flexibility in learning and faecal corticosterone metabolite levels under three conditions (holding in indoor cages, in outdoor enclosures and during open field test). Individuals were moderately consistent in their HPA response across situations. Proactive voles had significantly lower corticosterone levels than reactive conspecifics in indoor and outdoor conditions. However, we could not find any co-variation between cognitive and behavioural traits and corticosterone levels in the open field test. Our results partially support the original coping style model but suggest a more complex relationship between cognitive, behavioural and endocrine responses than was initially proposed.
Balancing foraging gain and predation risk is a fundamental trade-off in the life of animals. Individual strategies to acquire, process, store and use information to solve cognitive tasks are likely to affect speed and flexibility of learning, and ecologically relevant decisions regarding foraging and predation risk. Theory suggests a functional link between individual variation in cognitive style and behaviour (animal personality) via speed-accuracy and risk-reward trade-offs. We tested whether cognitive style and personality affect risk-reward trade-off decisions posed by foraging and predation risk. We exposed 21 bank voles (Myodes glareolus) that were bold, fast learning and inflexible and 18 voles that were shy, slow learning and flexible to outdoor enclosures with different risk levels at two food patches. We quantified individual food patch exploitation, foraging and vigilance behaviour. Although both types responded to risk, fast animals increasingly exploited both food patches, gaining access to more food and spending less time searching and exercising vigilance. Slow animals progressively avoided high-risk areas, concentrating foraging effort in the low-risk one, and devoting >50% of visit to vigilance. These patterns indicate that individual differences in cognitive style/personality are reflected in foraging and anti-predator decisions that underlie the individual risk-reward bias.
Balancing foraging gain and predation risk is a fundamental trade-off in the life of animals. Individual strategies to acquire, process, store and use information to solve cognitive tasks are likely to affect speed and flexibility of learning, and ecologically relevant decisions regarding foraging and predation risk. Theory suggests a functional link between individual variation in cognitive style and behaviour (animal personality) via speed-accuracy and risk-reward trade-offs. We tested whether cognitive style and personality affect risk-reward trade-off decisions posed by foraging and predation risk. We exposed 21 bank voles (Myodes glareolus) that were bold, fast learning and inflexible and 18 voles that were shy, slow learning and flexible to outdoor enclosures with different risk levels at two food patches. We quantified individual food patch exploitation, foraging and vigilance behaviour. Although both types responded to risk, fast animals increasingly exploited both food patches, gaining access to more food and spending less time searching and exercising vigilance. Slow animals progressively avoided high-risk areas, concentrating foraging effort in the low-risk one, and devoting >50% of visit to vigilance. These patterns indicate that individual differences in cognitive style/personality are reflected in foraging and anti-predator decisions that underlie the individual risk-reward bias.