4.7 Article

Experimental evidence for adaptive personalities in a wild passerine bird

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1936

关键词

asset protection; life-history trade-offs; Parus major; animal personality; reproductive value; risk-taking behaviour

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. Max Planck Society (MPG)
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-VICI)
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-ALW)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals of the same species differ consistently in risky actions. Such 'animal personality' variation is intriguing because behavioural flexibility is often assumed to be the norm. Recent theory predicts that between-individual differences in propensity to take risks should evolve if individuals differ in future fitness expectations: individuals with high long-term fitness expectations (i.e. that have much to lose) should behave consistently more cautious than individuals with lower expectations. Consequently, any manipulation of future fitness expectations should result in within-individual changes in risky behaviour in the direction predicted by this adaptive theory. We tested this prediction and confirmed experimentally that individuals indeed adjust their 'exploration behaviour', a proxy for risk-taking behaviour, to their future fitness expectations. We show for wild great tits (Parus major) that individuals with experimentally decreased survival probability become faster explorers (i.e. increase risk-taking behaviour) compared to individuals with increased survival probability. We also show, using quantitative genetics approaches, that non-genetic effects (i.e. permanent environment effects) underpin adaptive personality variation in this species. This study thereby confirms a key prediction of adaptive personality theory based on life-history trade-offs, and implies that selection may indeed favour the evolution of personalities in situations where individuals differ in future fitness expectations.

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

4.7
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