Individuals that are consistent in risk-taking benefit during collective foraging.
It is well established that living in groups helps animals avoid predation and locate resources, but maintaining a group requires collective coordination, which can be difficult when individuals differ from one another. Personality variation (consistent behavioural differences within a population) is already known to be important in group interactions. Growing evidence suggests that individuals also differ in their consistency, i.e. differing in how variable they are over time, and theoretical models predict that this consistency can be beneficial in social contexts. We used three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) to test whether the consistency in, as well as average levels of, risk taking behaviour (i.e. boldness) when individuals were tested alone affects social interactions when fish were retested in groups of 2 and 4. Behavioural consistency, independently of average levels of risk-taking, can be advantageous: more consistent individuals showed higher rates of initiating group movements as leaders, more behavioural coordination by joining others as followers, and greater food consumption. Our results have implications for both group decision making, as groups composed of consistent individuals are more cohesive, and personality traits, as social interactions can have functional consequences for consistency in behaviour and hence the evolution of personality variation.
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol , Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.
Christos C
CC
Ioannou
Centre for Ecology &Conservation, Biosciences, College of Life &Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Daphne du Maurier Building, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, UK.
Sasha R X
SR
Dall
Am Nat. 2015 Aug;186(2):284-93
26655156
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Apr 13;283(1828):null
27075257
Nature. 2005 Feb 3;433(7025):513-6
15690039
Biol Lett. 2009 Apr 23;5(2):191-3
19158025
Nat Methods. 2014 Jul;11(7):743-8
24880877
Ecol Lett. 2007 Sep;10(9):828-34
17663716
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Aug 28;280(1769):20131724
23986110
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2015 Aug;90(3):729-43
25080034
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Jul 13;283(1834):null
27383817
Ecology. 2013 Mar;94(3):573-9
23687883
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 7;278(1704):440-8
20739321
Oecologia. 2008 Aug;157(1):177-82
18481092
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 26;6:30334
27458063
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Feb;25(2):81-9
19748700
Curr Biol. 2009 Feb 10;19(3):248-52
19185497
Biol Lett. 2015 Apr;11(4):20150029
25904320
Am Nat. 2015 Jul;186(1):123-40
26098344
Oecologia. 2015 Mar;177(3):715-21
25399243
J Fish Biol. 2009 Nov;75(7):1868-73
20738654
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 May;85(2):217-46
19922534
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 27;365(1560):3947-58
21078647
Anim Behav. 2009 Apr 1;77(4):771-783
24707058
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 27;365(1560):3959-68
21078648
J Anim Ecol. 2007 Nov;76(6):1128-38
17922709
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 17;108(20):8373-8
21536882
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 May 22;279(1735):1977-85
22217717
Ecol Evol. 2013 Jun;3(6):1717-26
23789080
Sci Adv. 2016 Mar 04;2(3):e1501013
26973869
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 22;278(1709):1209-15
20943687
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Mar 27;364(1518):719-42
19073475
Am Nat. 2013 Nov;182(5):621-9
24107369
Curr Biol. 2013 Oct 7;23(19):1884-8
24035541
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(4):354-71
17201593
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 14;105(41):15825-30
18838685