Personality in captivity reflects personality in the wild

被引:203
作者
Herborn, Katherine A. [1 ]
Macleod, Ross [1 ]
Miles, Will T. S. [1 ]
Schofield, Anneka N. B. [1 ]
Alexander, Lucille [2 ]
Arnold, Kathryn E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Glasgow, Div Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Fac Biomed & Life Sci, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Lanark, Scotland
[2] Waltham Ctr Pet Nutr, Waltham On TheWolds LE14 4RT, Leics, England
基金
英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会;
关键词
animal personality; behavioural syndrome; blue tit; Cyanistes caeruleus; exploration; neophobia; risk responsiveness; RISK-TAKING BEHAVIOR; TIT PARUS-MAJOR; MALE GREAT TITS; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; GASTEROSTEUS-ACULEATUS; EXPLORATORY-BEHAVIOR; AVIAN PERSONALITIES; REALIZED HERITABILITY; 3-SPINED STICKLEBACK; PUMPKINSEED SUNFISH;
D O I
10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.026
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
To investigate the ecological significance of personality, researchers generally measure behavioural traits in captivity. Whether behaviour in captivity is analogous to behaviour in the wild, however, is seldom tested. We compared individual behaviour between captivity and the wild in blue tits, Cyanistes caeruleus. Over two winters, 125 blue tits were briefly brought into captivity to measure exploratory tendency and neophobia using variants of standard personality assays. Each was then released, fitted with a passive integrated transponder. Using an electronic monitoring system, we then recorded individuals' use of feeders as they foraged in the wild. We used variation in the discovery of new feeders to score 91 birds for exploratory tendency in the wild. At eight permanent feeding stations, 78 birds were assayed for neophobia in the wild. Behavioural variation in the captive personality trials was independent of permanent (e.g. sex) and nonpermanent (e.g. condition or weather) sources of between-individual variation at capture. Individual exploratory tendency and neophobia were consistent and repeatable in captivity, and analogous traits were repeatable in the wild; thus all constituted personality traits in the blue tit. Exploratory tendency and neophobia were not correlated with each other, in either the captive or the wild context. Therefore they are independent traits in blue tits, in contrast to many species. Finally, exploratory tendency and neophobia measured in captivity positively predicted the analogous traits measured in the wild. Reflecting differences in the use of feeding opportunities, personality in captivity therefore revealed relevant differences in foraging behaviour between individuals. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:835 / 843
页数:9
相关论文
共 54 条
[21]   From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? [J].
Gosling, SD .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2001, 127 (01) :45-86
[23]   Avian personalities: characterization and epigenesis [J].
Groothuis, TGG ;
Carere, C .
NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2005, 29 (01) :137-150
[24]   Personality and nest defence in the great tit (Parus major) [J].
Hollander, Franck A. ;
Van Overveld, Thijs ;
Tokka, Iris ;
Matthysen, Erik .
ETHOLOGY, 2008, 114 (04) :405-412
[25]   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANTI-PREDATOR BEHAVIOR AND AGGRESSION AMONG CONSPECIFICS IN 3-SPINED STICKLEBACK, GASTEROSTEUS-ACULEATUS [J].
HUNTINGFORD, FA .
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 1976, 24 (MAY) :245-260
[26]  
Jenni L., 2020, The Biology of Moult in Birds
[27]   Fear, food, sex and parental care:: a syndrome of boldness in the fishing spider, Dolomedes triton [J].
Johnson, J. Chadwick ;
Sih, Andrew .
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2007, 74 :1131-1138
[28]   UNREPEATABLE REPEATABILITIES - A COMMON MISTAKE [J].
LESSELLS, CM ;
BOAG, PT .
AUK, 1987, 104 (01) :116-121
[29]   SELECTION ON FLEDGING MASS IN THE COLLARED FLYCATCHER AND THE GREAT TIT [J].
LINDEN, M ;
GUSTAFSSON, L ;
PART, T .
ECOLOGY, 1992, 73 (01) :336-343
[30]   Diurnal mass gain strategies and perceived predation risk in the great tit Parus major [J].
Macleod, R ;
Gosler, AG ;
Cresswell, W .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2005, 74 (05) :956-964