Advertisement

Behavioral repeatability and choice performance in wild free-flying nectarivorous bats (Glossophaga commissarisi)

  • Vladislav NachevEmail author
  • York Winter
Original Article

Abstract

Animal individuals show patterns of behavior that are stable within individuals but different among individuals. Such individual differences are potentially associated with differences in foraging efficiency and in fitness. Furthermore, behavioral responses may be correlated in specific suites of so-called behavioral syndromes that are consistent across different contexts and with time. Here, we present a field investigation on individual differences between wild, free-flying nectarivorous bats (Glossophaga commissarisi) in the foraging context. We further investigated how individual differences affect choice performance, and we examined their interdependence within hypothesized behavioral syndrome structures. Free-ranging bats were individually identified as they visited an array of 24 artificial flowers with nectar of high or low sugar concentration. We found that three behavioral measures of foraging behavior were individually stable over the two-month observation period. We investigated the link between individual behavioral measures and measures of choice performance using generalized linear mixed models. Individual measures of choice performance showed significant repeatability, and we found evidence that bats making more visits per bout tend to be slower in learning to avoid unprofitable flowers. We used a multi-response generalized linear mixed model to estimate between-individual correlations and compare hypothesized syndrome structures. There were no clear patterns of between-individual correlations among the behavioral measures in our study, despite the measures exhibiting significant repeatability. This may indicate that foraging behavior depends on multiple individual behavior dimensions that are not adequately described by simple models of behavioral syndromes.

Significance statement

Nectar-feeding bats, like other animals including humans, have their own peculiar ways of consuming food that differ among individuals of the same species. We characterized the feeding habits of individuals in a population of wild, free-flying bats that were trained to gather nectar from computer-automated artificial flowers in a Costa Rican rainforest. Individual bats responded to the experimental conditions in different ways, but consistently over the two-month observation period. For example, some bats frequently returned to the same flowers, while others tended to meticulously probe most flowers they encountered before returning to a previously visited location. Interestingly, bats also consistently differed in how fast they learned to avoid flowers with dilute nectar and the faster learners were the bats that made only a few visits on each feeding trip. This suggests that individual foraging strategies might be associated with differences in foraging efficiency.

Keywords

Personality traits Behavioral syndromes Foraging Nectarivory Bats 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Arne Jungwirth for fieldwork assistance and Alexej Schatz for software programming, as well as Jerry Wilkinson and the anonymous reviewers, whose comments greatly helped improve this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Geographic Society (8579-08), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Exc257, Exc277), and the Volkswagen Foundation (84915 to VN).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This is a reanalysis of a previously published study. Treatment of the experimental animals in that study complied with the national laws on animal care and experimentation.

References

  1. Beekman M, Jordan LA (2017) Does the field of animal personality provide any new insights for behavioral ecology? Behav Ecol 28:617–623.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell AM (2007) Future directions in behavioural syndromes research. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:755–761.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell A, Hankison S, Laskowski K (2009) The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 77:771–783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.022 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  5. Benus RF, Bohus B, Koolhaas JM, van Oortmerssen GA (1991) Heritable variation for aggression as a reflection of individual coping strategies. Experientia 47:1008–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coppens CM, de Boer SF, Koolhaas JM (2010) Coping styles and behavioural flexibility: towards underlying mechanisms. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:4021–4028.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daw ND, O’Doherty JP, Dayan P, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature 441:876–879.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04766 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82:39–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dingemanse NJ, Réale D (2005) Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour 142:1159–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853905774539445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann N, Wright J (2010) A method for exploring the structure of behavioural syndromes to allow formal comparison within and between data sets. Anim Behav 79:439–450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA, Nakagawa S (2012) Defining behavioural syndromes and the role of “syndrome deviation” in understanding their evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1543–1548.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1416-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dochtermann NA, Jenkins SH (2007) Behavioural syndromes in Merriam’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami): a test of competing hypotheses. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2343–2349.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dochtermann NA, Jenkins SH (2011) Multivariate methods and small sample sizes. Ethology 117:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01846.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dochtermann NA, Schwab T, Sih A (2015) The contribution of additive genetic variation to personality variation: heritability of personality. Proc R Soc B 282:20142201.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2201 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher DN, Brachmann M, Burant JB (2018) Complex dynamics and the development of behavioural individuality. Anim Behav 138:e1–e6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallistel CR, Fairhurst S, Balsam P (2004) The learning curve: implications of a quantitative analysis. PNAS 101:13124–13131.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404965101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glimcher PW (2011) Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: the dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:15647–15654.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014269108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gosling SD (2001) From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol Bull 127:45–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.45 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould TD, Gottesman II (2006) Psychiatric endophenotypes and the development of valid animal models. Genes Brain Behav 5:113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00186.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Guillette LM, Reddon AR, Hoeschele M, Sturdy CB (2011) Sometimes slower is better: slow-exploring birds are more sensitive to changes in a vocal discrimination task. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:767–773.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeanniard-du-Dot T, Trites AW, Arnould JPY, Guinet C (2017) Reproductive success is energetically linked to foraging efficiency in Antarctic fur seals. PLoS One 12:e0174001.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Koolhaas JM, de Boer SF, Buwalda B, van Reenen K (2007) Individual variation in coping with stress: a multidimensional approach of ultimate and proximate mechanisms. Brain Behav Evol 70:218–226.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000105485 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemon WC (1991) Fitness consequences of foraging behaviour in the zebra finch. Nature 352:153–155.  https://doi.org/10.1038/352153a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mathot KJ, Wright J, Kempenaers B, Dingemanse NJ (2012) Adaptive strategies for managing uncertainty may explain personality-related differences in behavioural plasticity. Oikos 121:1009–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20339.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muchhala N, Thomson JD (2009) Going to great lengths: selection for long corolla tubes in an extremely specialized bat-flower mutualism. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2147–2152.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mutzel A, Dingemanse NJ, Araya-Ajoy YG, Kempenaers B (2013) Parental provisioning behaviour plays a key role in linking personality with reproductive success. Proc R Soc B 280:20131019.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nachev V (2018) ontogenerator/cpdetectorr: Turquoise. Zenodo.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1220161
  29. Nachev V, Winter Y (2012) The psychophysics of uneconomical choice: non-linear reward evaluation by a nectar flower. Anim Cogn 15:393–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0465-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nachev V, Winter Y (2018) Repeatability and foraging performance in wild free-flying nectarivorous bats (Glossophaga commissarisi). Zenodo  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1446479
  31. Nachev V, Stich KP, Winter Y (2013) Weber’s law, the magnitude effect and discrimination of sugar concentrations in nectar-feeding animals. PLoS One 8:e74144.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074144 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Nachev V, Stich KP, Winter C, Bond A, Kamil A, Winter Y (2017) Cognition-mediated evolution of low-quality floral nectars. Science 355:75–78.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4219 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00141.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohashi K, Thomson JD (2005) Efficient harvesting of renewing resources. Behav Ecol 16:592–605.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paton DC, Carpenter FL (1984) Peripheral foraging by territorial rufous hummingbirds: defense by exploitation. Ecology 65:1808–1819.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1937777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penke L, Denissen JJA, Miller GF (2007) The evolutionary genetics of personality. Eur J Personal 21:549–587.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org
  38. Réale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritchie ME (1990) Optimal foraging and fitness in Columbian ground squirrels. Oecologia 82:56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00318534 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Roche DG, Careau V, Binning SA (2016) Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists. J Exp Biol 219:3832–3843.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.146712 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sih A, Del Giudice M (2012) Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: a behavioural ecology perspective. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2762–2772.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sih A, Mathot KJ, Moirón M, Montiglio P-O, Wolf M, Dingemanse NJ (2015) Animal personality and state–behaviour feedbacks: a review and guide for empiricists. Trends Ecol Evol 30:50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Thiele J (2006) Nahrungssuchstrategien der nektarivoren Fledermaus Glossophaga commissarisi (Phyllostomidae) im Freiland - eine individuenbasierte Verhaltensstudie unter Verwendung von Transpondertechnik. Dissertation, Ludwig Maximilian University, http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5566/
  46. Tschapka M (2004) Energy density patterns of nectar resources permit coexistence within a guild of Neotropical flower-visiting bats. J Zool 263:7–21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903004734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winter Y, Stich KP (2005) Foraging in a complex naturalistic environment: capacity of spatial working memory in flower bats. J Exp Biol 208:539–548.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01416 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolf M, van Doorn GS, Leimar O, Weissing FJ (2007) Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature 447:581–584.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05835 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolf M, van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ (2008) Evolutionary emergence of responsive and unresponsive personalities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:15825–15830.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805473105 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyHumboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations