Different or alike? Female rainbow kribs choose males of similar consistency and dissimilar level of boldness

Abstract

to different conditions. However, sheer costs of flexibility cannot explain the polymorphism 22 created by personality variation. In a correlative approach, we here tested whether mate 23 choice might act as a major driving force maintaining personality variation in the 24 monogamous, biparental rainbow krib, Pelvicachromis pulcher. We personality-typed all 25 males and females for their boldness (activity under simulated predation risk) and allowed 26 females to choose between two males that differed in their boldness (behavioural level and 27 consistency). Prior to the choice, females were allowed to observe both males, expressing 28 their natural boldness towards a video animated natural predator. Both sexes showed 29 personality differences in boldness over the short-and long-term. Furthermore, when 30 removing side-biased females, we found a dis-assortative mating preference for the 31 behavioural level and an assortative preference for behavioural consistency in boldness. 32Such preference patterns might facilitate effective parental role allocation during offspring 33 care and/or provide genetic benefits. Our results suggest that sexual selection plays an 34 important role in the evolution of personality differences. 35 36 Keywords: anti-predator behaviour, assortative, behavioural compatibility, cichlid, mate 37 choice, Pelvicachromis pulcher, personality, risk-taking, sexual selection, side bias 38 39 3 Individuals have to cope with a wide array of environmental challenges. Therefore, 40 flexibility in the expression of behavioural responses towards different and changing 41 conditions should be favoured by selection ). Yet, individuals often show 42 considerable consistent between-individual differences in behaviour over time and/or 43 contexts (Boissy, 1995). Such personality differences are common throughout the animal 44 kingdom (reviewed in Gosling, 2001; Kralj-Fišer et al., 2014) and have been shown for 45 various behavioural traits, such as activity pattern, aggressiveness, exploratory tendencies, 46 boldness and fearfulness (reviewed in Dall et al., 2004; Gosling, 2001;. 47Personality traits are moderately heritable (Ariyomo, Carter, et al., 2013; Patrick et al., 48 2013;Reif et al., 2003;van Oers et al., 2005) and have fitness consequences (e.g. Ariyomo et 49 al., 2012; Dingemanse et al., 2005;Smith et al., 2008), suggesting they are not merely non-50 adaptive noise that surrounds an adaptive optimum (Wilson, 1998). Nevertheless, 51 underlying mechanisms that generate and maintain behavioural polymorphism are largely 52 unclear and many aspects of the growing body of theoretical frameworks still remain to be 53 empirically tested (reviewed in e.g. Schuett et al., 2010;Wolf et al., 2010). 54 55 Recently, Schuett et al. (2010) pointed out that sexual selection may be important in 56 generating and maintaining personality variation though this possibility has rarely been 57 tested (but see e.g. Montiglio et al., 2016;. According to the proposed 58 framework , personalities are expected to p...

Advancing mate choice studies in salmonids

“…For example, female guppies prefer to mate with bolder males (e.g. Godin and Dugatkin 1996), but female rainbow kribs (Pelvicachromis pulcher) preferentially mate with males who display a dissimilar level of boldness to themselves (Scherer et al 2017), and pairs of great tits (Parus major) that mated assortatively at either extreme of the boldness spectrum had the greatest reproductive success (Both et al 2005). A meta-analysis by Smith and Blumstein (2008) on multiple taxa, including fishes, found a significant positive correlation between boldness and reproductive success in captive animals.…”

“…Sneddon 2003;Wilson and Stevens 2005;Adriaenssens and Johnsson 2010) that are heritable (Vilhunen et al 2008;Kortet et al 2014) and evidence that personality can affect mate choice (e.g. Godin and Dugatkin 1996;Both et al 2005;David and Cézilly 2011;Scherer et al 2017).…”

Different preference functions act in unison: mate choice and risk-taking behaviour in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)

“…Overall then, while mate choice based on directional preferences (Godin & Dugatkin 1996; Kortet, Niemelä, Vainikka & Laakso 2012; Reaney & Backwell) and assortative mate choice (Ariyomo & Watt, 2013; Both, Dingemanse, Drent & Tinbergen, 2005; Kralj-Fišer, Sanguino Mostajo, Preik, Pekár & Schneider, 2013; Scherer, Kuhnhardt & Schuett, 2017) seem to be mutually exclusive mechanisms, our results suggest that the existence of a directional preference does not preclude effects of choosing individuals’ personality on individual variation in mating preferences.…”

“…Animal personality represents a major component of intraspecific phenotypic variation (Wolf & Weissing, 2012), but whether and how sexual selection (e.g., through mate choice) affects personality distributions remains understudied (Schuett, Tregenza & Dall, 2010). Using the livebearing fish Poecilia mexicana , we investigated whether a directional mating preference for risk-taking mating partners provides those individuals with a reproductive advantage (Godin & Dugatkin, 1996; Kortet, Niemelä, Vainikka & Laakso, 2019) and/or if the strength of preference for risk-taking individuals would be dependent on the choosing individuals’ own tendency to take risks (assortative mate choice; Scherer, Kuhnhardt & Schuett, 2017). We found a pattern in which both preference functions appear to interact: female (but not male) P. mexicana generally preferred risk-taking over risk-averse mating partners, but the strength of preference (SOP) for risk-taking males was dependent on the choosing females’ own personality type (i.e.…”

“…While some studies suggest the existence of a directional preference for risk-taking mating partners, others reported contrasting patterns in that risk-taking females preferred risk-taking males and vice versa , leading to assortative mating (Jiang, Bolnick & Kirkpatrick, 2013). Assortative mating can affect individuals’ reproductive success (Both, Dingemanse, Drent & Tinbergen, 2005; Kralj-Fišer, Sanguino Mostajo, Preik, Pekár & Schneider, 2013; Scherer, Kuhnhardt & Schuett, 2017). For instance, guppy females that were paired with males showing similar risk-taking tendencies had a higher parturition success than females that were paired disassortatively (Ariyomo & Watt, 2013).…”