4.2 Article

Population differences in behaviour are explained by shared within-population trait correlations

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 748-756

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01940.x

关键词

animal personality; correlated evolution; geographical variation; line of least resistance; trade-off

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0235311]
  2. University of Tennessee Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department
  3. Ministerio del Ambiente of Ecuador [013-2008-IC-FAU-DRFP/MA]
  4. Escuela de Ciencias Biologicas
  5. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador
  6. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0235311] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correlations in behavioural traits across time, situation and ecological context (i.e. 'behavioural syndromes' or 'personality') have been documented for a variety of behaviours, and in diverse taxa. Perhaps the most controversial inference from the behavioural syndromes literature is that correlated behaviour may act as an evolutionary constraint and evolutionary change in one's behaviour may necessarily involve shifts in others. We test the two predictions of this hypothesis using comparative data from eighteen populations of the socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus studiosus (Araneae, Theriidae). First, we ask whether geographically distant populations share a common syndrome. Second, we test whether population differences in behaviour are correlated similarly to within-population trait correlations. Our results reveal that populations separated by as much as 36 degrees latitude shared similar syndromes. Furthermore, population differences in behaviour were correlated in the same manner as within-population trait correlations. That is, population divergence tended to be along the same axes as within-population covariance. Together, these results suggest a lack of evolutionary independence in the syndrome's constituent traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据