| Literature DB >> 36241984 |
Roberto Rodriguez-Morales1, Paola Gonzalez-Lerma2, Anders Yuiska3, Ji Heon Han3,4, Yolanda Guerra5, Lina Crisostomo5, Alex C Keene6, Erik R Duboue3,5, Johanna E Kowalko7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aggression is observed across the animal kingdom, and benefits animals in a number of ways to increase fitness and promote survival. While aggressive behaviors vary widely across populations and can evolve as an adaptation to a particular environment, the complexity of aggressive behaviors presents a challenge to studying the evolution of aggression. The Mexican tetra, Astyanax mexicanus exists as an aggressive river-dwelling surface form and multiple populations of a blind cave form, some of which exhibit reduced aggression, providing the opportunity to investigate how evolution shapes aggressive behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: Aggression; Astyanax mexicanus; Cavefish
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36241984 PMCID: PMC9563175 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-022-02069-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol Evol ISSN: 2730-7182
Definitions for all aggression- and escape-associated behaviors scored in the resident/intruder assay
| Behavior | Description |
|---|---|
| Biting | Focal fish physically makes contact with another fish with its mouth while performing an opening and closing motion with its mouth. |
| Circling | Both fish engage in a circular motion, typically with one head facing the tail of the other fish and vice versa. |
| Following | Focal fish follows the trajectory of another fish, which might or might not be escaping. |
| Escaping | Focal fish accelerates away from the other fish. This could be in response to either following, biting or striking. |
| Freezing | Focal fish stops moving for greater than 5 s in any position within the tank. |
| Avoidance | Focal fish localizes in a corner of the tank for greater than 5 s. |
| Striking | Focal fish accelerates towards another fish ending in contact (but not necessarily biting). |
Fig. 1Quantification of social behaviors in the resident/intruder assay for surface fish and Pachón cavefish. (A) Representative ethograms for pairs of surface fish (top) and Pachón cavefish (bottom) during the resident/intruder 1-hour assay. Seven behaviors were annotated: biting, striking, following, circling, escaping, freezing, and avoidance (Table 1) over the 60 min assay period. Behaviors were quantified for each fish, and were pooled for both fish in each resident/intruder assay here (surface: n = 10, Pachón: n = 11). (B-H) Quantifications of behaviors annotated during the resident/intruder assay. All behaviors were scored for both individuals in the tank, and each data point represents either the number of behavioral events (biting (B), striking (C), circling (E)) or the time spent in a behavioral state (following (D), escaping (F), freezing (G), avoidance (H)) for one trial. Unpaired t-tests were calculated for biting (p < 0.05), circling (p < 0.01) and freezing (p < 0.001). Mann-Whitney statistical tests were performed for striking (p < 0.0001), following (p < 0.05), escaping (p < 0.0001) and avoidance (p < 0.01). Significance: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), p < 0.0001 (****), not significant (ns)
Fig. 2Social Behaviors in a Resident/Intruder Assay Under Light/Dark Conditions. (A-B) Representative merged resident/intruder activity plots for surface fish (top) and Pachón cavefish (bottom) in the light (A) or dark (B) during resident/intruder interactions. (C-D) Quantifications of behaviors annotated during each assay with light (L) versus dark (D) intra-population comparisons for surface fish (C) and Pachón cavefish (D) Assays were performed in the light (surface fish, n = 10; Pachón cavefish, n = 10) and dark (surface fish, n = 9; Pachón cavefish, n = 10). Non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests were performed for all behaviors except for circling (both in C and D), for which an unpaired t-test was performed. Surface fish: biting (p = 0.6461), striking (0.5091), following (p = 0.9682), circling (p < 0.05), escaping (p = 0.6083), freezing (p = 0.1540), avoidance (p = 0.1121); Pachón cavefish: biting (p < 0.05), striking (p = 0.6979), following (p < 0.05), circling (p < 0.05), escaping (p = 0.9765), freezing (p > 0.9999), avoidance (p > 0.9999).p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), p < 0.0001 (****), not significant (ns)
Fig. 3Resident/Intruder dynamics in surface fish versus Pachón cavefish fights. (A-B) Resident/intruder activity plots for surface fish-residents with Pachón-intruders (A) and Pachón-residents with surface fish-intruders (B) during staged fights. (C-I) Quantifications of behaviors annotated during staged fights with resident (R) and intruder (I) intra-population comparisons. 2-Way ANOVAs were performed for all behaviors, followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison’s test for resident versus intruder comparisons: When surface fish were residents: biting (p = 0.9513), striking (p = 0.7403), circling (p = 0.9935), following (p = 0.1689), escaping (p = 0.9865), freezing (p > 0.9999) and avoidance (p = 0.9712). When Pachón cavefish were residents: biting (p < 0.05), striking (p = 0.01), circling (p = 0.8589), following (p = 0.0086), escaping (p < 0.05), freezing (p = 0.2423) and avoidance (p = 0.5680). Significance: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), p < 0.0001 (****), not significant (ns)
Fig. 4Correlation between two social behaviors during a resident-intruder assay and bottom-dwelling. Correlations between number of strikes and time escaping during the resident/intruder assays and time spent in the bottom third of the tank in the novel tank assay were performed using Spearman’s rank correlation test for striking (A, surface, p = 0.9170, Pachón, p = 0.1941) and escaping (B, surface, p = 0.1694, Pachón, p = 0.4416)
Fig. 5Social behaviors in a resident/intruder assay across multiple cave populations. (A) Representative resident/intruder activity plots for Pachón (top left), Tinaja (bottom left), Los Sabinos (top right) and Molino (bottom right) cavefish during the resident/intruder assay. The number of total behaviors for both the resident and the intruder were combined. All fish were sex and size matched, and sex was not used as a variable given the lack of effect of sex on seven behaviors in Pachón cavefish (Fig S1). (B-H) Quantifications of behaviors annotated during fights with comparisons across populations (Pachón = Pa, Tinaja = Ti, Los Sabinos = Sa, and Molino = Mo). One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was performed for circling (Pachón-Molino, p < 0.0001, Pachón-Tinaja, p < 0.05, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p < 0.001, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.2887, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.885, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p = 0.7954). Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test were performed for biting (Pachón-Molino, p = 0.9213, Pachón-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p = 0.7564, Molino-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Molino-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999), striking (Pachón-Molino, p < 0.001, Pachón-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p = 0.2443, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.0057, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.3528, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999), escaping (Pachón-Molino, p < 0.01, Pachón-Tinaja, p = 0.409, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p = 0.4466, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.206, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.341, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999), following (Pachón-Molino, p = 0.0585, Pachón-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.2307, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.3641, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999), freezing (Pachón-Molino, p = 0.1938, Pachón-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.0586, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.0995, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999), and avoidance (Pachón-Molino, p = 0.0706, Pachón-Tinaja, p > 0.9999, Pachón-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999, Molino-Tinaja, p = 0.0702, Molino-Los Sabinos, p = 0.0289, Tinaja-Los Sabinos, p > 0.9999). Significance: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), p < 0.0001 (****), not significant (ns)