Habituation of Conspecific Aggressive Responses in the Siamese Fighting Fish (Betta Splendens)

Abstract

Mature male Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) were presented with a conspecific male confined in a clear plastic tube for either 15 minutes per day for 20 days (group E 15) or 60 minutes per day for 5 days (group E 60). A third group was presented with this aggression eliciting conspecific male stimulus for 15 minutes on days 1 and 2 and again on days 19 and 20. This group (group C 15) was designed to control for post-stimulation waning of aggressive behaviors independent of constant stimulation and also to control for response decrement as a simple function of time. Two components of the aggressive display and frequency of biting were recorded. It was found that with groups E 15 and E 60 all aggressive behaviors habituated. In general, habituation was more rapid with the short stimulation periods than with the longer ones, although qualitative differences were also found and described. Comparisons of groups E 15 and C 15 showed that repeated daily exposures to the aggression eliciting stimulus were necessary to obtain habituation and that two days of 15 minute stimulation followed by 16 days of no stimulation did not result in response decrement on any of the measures recorded.

Short-term changes in responsiveness to models inBetta splendens

“…The responsiveness then wanes until after 5 min exposure to the mirror; the duration of gill-cover erection is less than when there is no mirror exposure at all. This waning in responsiveness is in agreement with earlier reports of habituation of aggression in this species (Baenninger, 1966;Clayton & Hinde, 1968;Figler, 1972;Meliska & Meliska, 1976;Peeke & Peeke, 1970), although for most of these earlier studies much longer periods of exposure were needed to demonstrate habituation. The much shorter exposures needed for the reduction of responsiveness in the present experiment might 300 -.. odel).…”

“…Despite the shortness of the tests, there was significantly less gill-cover erection on the 1st day than on any other of the 6 experimental days, no matter which model was used. Most previous studies have shown a long-term decrease in responsiveness (e.g., Gallagher, Herz, & Peeke, 1972), even when only relatively short periods of exposure were given on each day (Peeke & Peeke, 1970). However, Clayton and Hinde (1968) did show that the duration of gill-cover erection (the measure used here) increased over the first 24 h of continuous mirror exposure, although they did not say whether this increase was statistically significant.…”

“…Mirror exposure did not affect responsiveness to a green model. These results suggest that there are incremental and decremental effects of responding in this situation, both of which are stimulus-specific.Many studies have shown that the aggressive display of some species of fish wanes during long-term exposure to the eliciting stimulus (e.g., for fighting fish: Baenninger, 1966;Clayton & Hinde, 1968;Figler, 1972;Meliska & Meliska, 1976;and Peeke & Peeke, 1970; for sticklebacks: Assem & Molen, 1969;and Peeke & Veno, 1976; and for convict cichlids: Gallagher, Herz, & Peeke, 1972). Most of these studies have used prolonged exposure to a live conspecific or to a mirror image to induce habituation.…”

“…Most of these studies have used prolonged exposure to a live conspecific or to a mirror image to induce habituation. However, waning of responsiveness is also obtained when relatively short periods of exposure are given at 24 h intervals (e.g., Figler, 1972;Meliska & Meliska, 1976;Peeke & Peeke, 1970).…”

Procedurally related differences in the aggressive behavior ofBetta splendens (Regan)

“…Furthermore, animals which exhibited submissiveness (zero display rates) during mutually caged encounters significantly increased the intensity of aggression during subsequent mutual viewing, while the dominant caged mates decreased the rate of displays. These results were interpreted to mean that mutual viewing produces habituation while mutual caging produces conditioned suppression, and that generalizations from one situation to the other may therefore be unwarranted.On the basis of Simpson's (1968) findings, Peeke and Peeke (1970) have criticized the use of mirror images as releasing stimuli in the study of Betta splendens (Siamese fighting fish). They suggest that the sequential and spatial relationships which characterize Betta aggressive behavior outside of the laboratory would be for the most part precluded by the use of mirror images.…”