| Literature DB >> 35964147 |
Jonas Stiegler1, Alisa Lins2, Melanie Dammhahn3, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt4,5, Sylvia Ortmann4, Niels Blaum2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal personality has emerged as a key concept in behavioral ecology. While many studies have demonstrated the influence of personality traits on behavioral patterns, its quantification, especially in wild animal populations, remains a challenge. Only a few studies have established a link between personality and recurring movements within home ranges, although these small-scale movements are of key importance for identifying ecological interactions and forming individual niches. In this regard, differences in space use among individuals might reflect different exploration styles between behavioral types along the shy-bold continuum.Entities:
Keywords: Animal personality; Energy expenditure; European hare; Inter-individual differences; Movement ecology; ODBA
Year: 2022 PMID: 35964147 PMCID: PMC9375925 DOI: 10.1186/s40462-022-00333-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mov Ecol ISSN: 2051-3933 Impact factor: 5.253
Definitions, min–max range, and units of behaviors observed during novel environment tests with captive European hares (Lepus europaeus) in an open field arena and on the release of captured free-ranging hares. ODBA data are based on acceleration loggers applied in collars
| Behavior | Definition | Unit | Range† | Location* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latency look° | Latency until the eyes were above the edge of the box for the first time | 1–3,951 | Both | |
| Latency leave° | Latency until the hare was outside the box with its full body for the first time | 1–3,961 | Both | |
| Delta look-leave° | Delta between Latency look & Latency leave | 0–3482 | Both | |
| Exploring the first 3 m° | Latency from Latency leave until the hare crossed the first 3 m of the enclosure with its entire body | 40–7,817 | Enclosure | |
| Exploring the enclosure° | Latency from Latency leave until the hare reached the opposite end of the enclosure with its full body (27 m) | 66–12,000 | Enclosure | |
| 3-day activity | Mean ODBA value for three successive days, calculated after the release of the individual (72 h) | 0.10–0.51 | Both | |
| 10-day activity | Mean ODBA value for 10 successive days, calculated after the release of the individual. (240 h) | 0.16–0.30 | Field | |
| 20-day activity | Mean ODBA value for 20 successive days, calculated after the release of the individual (480 h) | 0.18–0.31 | Field | |
| 30-day activity | Mean ODBA value for 30 successive days, calculated after the release of the individual (720 h) | 0.17–030 | Field |
*Behaviors were recorded at the enclosure site, in the field, or at both locations
°Behaviors were recorded for both primary and repetition trials of the captive-bred hares
†12,000 was used as a maximum value
Fig. 1Adjusted repeatability (i.e., fixed effect for enclosure type, 10 hares were kept in cages, 4 hares were kept in arenas) of behavioral variables quantified in repeated novel environment tests of 14 captive European hares (Lepus europaeus) in an open field arena. Latency look: p (LRT) = 0.006, p (permutation) = 0.009; Latency leave: p (LRT) = 0.010, p (permutation) = 0.014; Delta look-leave: p (LRT) = 0.026, p (permutation) = 0.030; Exploring first 3 m: p (LRT) = 0.093, p (permutation) = 0.124; Exploring enclosure: p (LRT) = 0.135, p (permutation) = 0.183. Shown are repeatability estimates (red dots) and their 95% confidence intervals (lines) estimated via parametric bootstraps (n = 10,000 simulations); p-values are based on permutations (n = 10,000)
Fig. 2Observed values (circles and triangles), predicted values (connected by the black line), and SE (gray shading) for A The latency to first look out of a safe retreat; p = 0.003 and B the latency to leave a safe retreat in relation to general activity (mean ODBA measured in ) during the three consecutive days in a novel environment in 12 captive hares; p = 0.045. The behavioral trait C Latency-look and D Latency leave (small latencies equal to a high score on the bold-shy continuum) of wild hares (Lepus europaeus) and their relationship with general activity (mean ODBA) for the first 3 (n = 14), 10 (n = 13), 20 (n = 12) and 30 (n = 12) days of tracking; all p < 0.026
Model results: activity measurements in relation to the BLUP (derived from Latency look ~ housing type + number of trial + (1|individual) and Latency leave ~ housing type + number of trial + (1|individual) for captive hares, and to Latency look and Latency leave for wild hares †
| Hares | Activity period | Latency look | Latency leave | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Estimate | Std. error | t value | Pr( >|t|) | Estimate | Std. error | t value | Pr( >|t|) | ||
| Captive | 3 days | (Intercept) | 4.796 | 0.476 | 10.071 | < 0.001 | 3.804 | 0.383 | 9.938 | < 0.001 |
| BLUP | 0.056 | 0.014 | 4.13 | 0.003 | 0.097 | 0.042 | 2.292 | 0.045 | ||
| Housing | − 1.099 | 0.535 | − 2.053 | 0.07 | − | − | − | − | ||
| Wild | 3 days | (Intercept) | 0.363 | 0.172 | 2.106 | 0.059 | 0.341 | 0.162 | 2.107 | 0.059 |
| Latency | − 0.002 | 0.001 | − 2.564 | 0.026 | − 0.002 | 0.001 | − 2.717 | 0.020 | ||
| Mass | − 0.024 | 0.038 | − 0.619 | 0.548 | − 0.016 | 0.036 | − 0.447 | 0.664 | ||
| Wild | 10 days | (Intercept) | 0.443 | 0.135 | 3.286 | 0.008 | 0.410 | 0.125 | 3.289 | 0.008 |
| Latency | − 0.002 | 0.001 | − 3.276 | 0.008 | − 0.002 | 0.000 | − 3.492 | 0.006 | ||
| Mass | − 0.039 | 0.030 | − 1.307 | 0.221 | − 0.029 | 0.028 | − 1.044 | 0.321 | ||
| Wild | 20 days | (Intercept) | 0.515 | 0.128 | 4.028 | 0.003 | 0.471 | 0.120 | 3.939 | 0.003 |
| Latency | − 0.002 | 0.001 | − 3.779 | 0.004 | − 0.002 | 0.000 | − 3.884 | 0.004 | ||
| Mass | − 0.051 | 0.028 | − 1.795 | 0.106 | − 0.038 | 0.027 | − 1.416 | 0.191 | ||
| Wild | 30 days | (Intercept) | 0.477 | 0.141 | 3.397 | 0.011 | 0.371 | 0.138 | 2.676 | 0.032 |
| Latency | − 0.002 | 0.000 | − 4.714 | 0.002 | − 0.002 | 0.000 | − 4.613 | 0.002 | ||
| Mass | − 0.040 | 0.030 | − 1.302 | 0.234 | − 0.013 | 0.031 | − 0.408 | 0.695 | ||
†For our dependent variable, the mean ODBA, we assumed a Gamma error distribution
Fig. 3Observed values (circles) with low–high error bars (95% CI), predicted values (connected by lines, dashed lines show non-significant regressions), and SE (gray shading) of wild hares (Lepus europaeus) for relationships between behavioral variables A Latency look and B Latency leave with home range size (akde95) of the first 20- and 30 days after release; C Latency Look and D Latency leave with core area size (akde50) of the first 20- and 30 days after release. n = 12
Model results: home range sizes in relation to the Latency look and Latency leave†
| Home range type | Latency look | Latency leave | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Estimate | Std. error | t value | Pr( >|t|) | Estimate | Std. error | t value | Pr( >|t|) | |
| 20 days, akde50 | (Intercept) | 11.28 | 3.38 | 3.34 | 0.01 | 10.279 | 3.135 | 3.279 | 0.010 |
| Latency | − 0.04 | 0.01 | − 2.86 | 0.02 | − 0.041 | 0.012 | − 3.310 | 0.009 | |
| Mass | − 1.71 | 0.76 | − 2.24 | 0.05 | − 1.416 | 0.719 | − 1.969 | 0.080 | |
| 20 days, akde95 | (Intercept) | − 2.130 | 5.578 | − 0.382 | 0.711 | − 0.622 | 5.336 | − 0.117 | 0.910 |
| Latency | 0.060 | 0.023 | 2.628 | 0.027 | 0.060 | 0.021 | 2.887 | 0.018 | |
| Mass | 0.579 | 1.259 | 0.460 | 0.656 | 0.145 | 1.224 | 0.118 | 0.909 | |
| 30 days, akde50 | (Intercept) | 14.45 | 4.56 | 3.16 | 0.02 | 12.874 | 5.107 | 2.521 | 0.040 |
| Latency | − 0.04 | 0.02 | − 2.57 | 0.04 | − 0.034 | 0.017 | − 2.003 | 0.085 | |
| Mass | − 2.49 | 1.01 | − 2.46 | 0.04 | − 2.125 | 1.158 | − 1.835 | 0.109 | |
| 30 days, akde95 | (Intercept) | − 8.590 | 5.948 | − 1.444 | 0.192 | − 6.547 | 6.193 | − 1.057 | 0.326 |
| Latency | 0.047 | 0.020 | 2.376 | 0.049 | 0.046 | 0.021 | 2.194 | 0.064 | |
| Mass | 2.076 | 1.320 | 1.573 | 0.160 | 1.567 | 1.404 | 1.116 | 0.301 | |
†For our dependent variable, the logarithmic HR size, we assumed a Gaussian error distribution