Turning Shy on a Winter's Day: Effects of Season on Personality and Stress Response in <i><scp>M</scp>icrotus arvalis</i>

Gracceva, Giulia; Herde, Antje; Groothuis, Ton G. G.; Koolhaas, Jaap M.; Palme, Rupert; Eccard, Jana A.

doi:10.1111/eth.12246

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(140 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, we found that the more active individuals within a flock were the more difficult to catch in Short Days but not in Long Days. The correlation between within‐flock activity and escape ability may rather result from short‐term adjustments to a given photoperiod (Gracceva et al., ). Furthermore, we found that several relationships between personality traits not only varied with photoperiod but also with sex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These observations thus showed that animal personality is not incompatible with behavioural plasticity as consistent interindividual differences can be maintained despite individuals’ mean reaction to an environmental change. Other studies showed that correlations between behaviours (i.e., behavioural profiles) differed between populations in sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ; Bell & Stamps, ), between years in flycatchers ( Ficedula albicollis ; Garamszegi et al., ) or between seasons in common voles ( Microtus arvalis ; Gracceva et al., ). Environmental conditions might thus favour different correlations between personality traits (Bell & Stamps, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this perspective, it has been hypothesised that animals have evolved to cope with cyclical fluctuations by adjusting both personality traits and behavioural profiles (Gracceva et al., ). Among these fluctuations, photoperiod is a good candidate to study variation in personality traits and behavioural profiles because photoperiod is well known to induce reproductive behaviours as well as hormonal and physiological changes (e.g., Leboucher et al., ), and these changes can in turn affect personality traits (e.g., Koolhaas, de Boer, Coppens, & Buwalda, ; Koolhaas et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We investigated if personality traits and behavioural profiles varied depending on whether photoperiod and sex were taken into account or not. If personality traits were influenced by photoperiod, we expected mean‐level changes between the two photoperiods: we expected to observe more risk‐taking behaviours in Long Days than in Short Days (Gracceva et al., ) such an increase in boldness, within‐flock activity, response to threat and escape ability as well as a decrease in neophobia. Photoperiod may also affect repeatability estimates and pattern of correlations (behavioural profile).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Personality traits and behavioural profiles in the domestic canary are affected by sex and photoperiod

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personality traits and behavioural profiles are generally assumed to be stable in adulthood. Yet, it has been hypothesised that animals should cope with cyclical fluctuations by adjusting both single behaviours and suites of behaviour. Photoperiod is well known to induce hormonal and physiological changes, and these changes can in turn affect personality traits and behavioural profiles. This study is the first to explicitly investigate the influence of photoperiod on both behavioural profiles and personality traits. Six potential personality traits (within‐flock activity, ability to escape, response to threat, isolation calling, boldness and neophobia) and dominance were measured four times in 96 domestic canaries Serinus canaria (48 males and 48 females): twice during a long photoperiod (Long Days) and 6 months later twice during a short photoperiod (Short Days). Without regard to sex and photoperiod, most traits were highly repeatable, and bolder canaries were more dominant, less sensitive to an external threat and to isolation and less neophobic. In addition, the more active individuals within a flock were the more difficult to catch. Yet, both sex and photoperiod affected personality traits and behavioural profiles. Personality traits remained repeatable within each photoperiod though we observed behavioural plasticity and sex differences for response to threat, neophobia and within‐flock activity. Concerning behavioural profiles, the negative relationship between boldness and neophobia remained homogenous in both sexes during Short Days as well as during Long Days. Then, the more active individuals within a flock were the more difficult to catch in Short Days but not in Long Days. Finally, the other correlations not only varied with photoperiod but also with sex. Our study highlights the importance of photoperiod and sex in the expression of personality traits and behavioural profiles, and of the need to measure them across the whole photoperiodic cycle.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Personality traits and behavioural profiles in the domestic canary are affected by sex and photoperiod

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an area of research that has progressed remarkably (see Bedoya-Perez et al 2013 for review) since the seminal paper on giving up densities by Joel Brown (1988). The other areas of behaviour that were covered were the fascinating study of individual behavioural 'personalities' of rodents (Gracceva et al 2014) and how knowledge of the social interactions that influence the use of the landscape by different species could provide a mechanism for using native rodent species to manage a population of the invasive black rat, Rattus rattus, in an urban-bushland interface (Banks and Smith 2015). Two other papers in this issue examine behaviour of rodents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A meeting of mice and men: rodent impacts on food security, human diseases and wildlife conservation; ecosystem benefits; fascinating biological models

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rodents attract attention often for their negative impacts on the well-being of people as competitors for our staple foods such as cereals (Singleton et al. 2010) or as carriers of human diseases (Meerburg et al. 2009). They also are pilloried for their impacts on the conservation of wildlife, especially birds and reptiles that nest or dwell on the ground on oceanic islands (Russell and Holmes 2015) or larger land masses (Ruscoe and Pech 2010). However, rodents should be viewed in a much broader context. They make up some 42% of mammalian species and less than 10% of species pose significant impacts on humans in agricultural or urban settings (Singleton et al. 2007), and, indeed, many play important roles in ecosystems (Dickman 1999;Werner et al. 2015). It is a common interest in the breadth of research questions on rodents that leads to a gathering of international biologists every 4 years. The 5th International Conference of Rodent Biology and Management (ICRBM) held in Zhengzhou, China, in August 2014, was attended by 166 participants from 25 countries. Some 190 presentations and posters were presented on both basic and applied research of rodents in the fields of ecology, behaviour, reproductive physiology, taxonomy and evolution, parasitology (micro-and macro), rodent-plant interactions, community ecology, ecosystem services, genes and neuro-science, chemical communication, and their negative impacts on conservation, food security, and health. There were also symposia on squirrels, subterranean rodents and urban rodents. The 1st ICRBM was held in Beijing in 1998 and the conference has developed considerably in its breadth of topics in the intervening 16 years (see http://www.icrbm.org/previousicrbms). A selection of papers were published from the 1st ICRBM (Singleton et al. 1999), all were peer reviewed and published from the 2nd ICRBM (Singleton et al. 2003), and a selection of papers were published from the 3rd ICRBM ) and the 4th ICRBM (Hinds and Singleton 2011). The current issue provides a selection of papers associated with the 5th ICRBM and has an interesting spread, with four being focused on Africa, two on Europe, four on Asia, one on Australia, and one on Canada. To highlight the cosmopolitan mix of contributions, two of the African papers have lead authors from Belgium and New Zealand, and three from Asia have lead authors from France and the United Kingdom.The conference in Zhengzhou had eight plenary presentations, all of outstanding merit. An interesting development was that the respective plenary presentations by Joel Brown, Jana Eccard and Peter Banks had a strong focus on behavioural ecology, particularly on how rodents manage their 'night to night' activities, given the risks associated with predators, and intraspecific competition for resources. The risks associated with this 'landscape of fear' can have major effects on the spacing behaviour of animals and on their genetic fitness. This is an area of research that has progressed remarkably (see Bedoya-Perez et al. 2013 for review) since ...

show abstract

Land‐use change alters associations between personality and microhabitat selection

Brehm

Mortelliti

2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecologists commonly assess ecological patterns at the population level, focusing on the average response of all individuals within a population, but to predict how populations will respond to land‐use change we must understand how changes to habitat differentially affect individuals within a population. For example, forest management is a widespread type of land‐use that impacts wildlife through the loss of key habitat features, but individuals within a population may vary in their responses to this loss due to differences in habitat selection among individuals. Specifically, intraspecific variation in habitat selection has been linked to animal personalities (i.e., consistent behavioral differences among conspecifics), but previous research has not examined whether the relationship between personality and habitat selection is influenced by land‐use change. To address this knowledge gap, we tested the hypothesis that land‐use change alters the association between personality and microhabitat selection in small mammals. Specifically, we investigated two main questions: (1) To what extent are personality type and microhabitat selection correlated among conspecifics? (2) Does land‐use change alter individual patterns of microhabitat selection? To answer these questions, we conducted a large‐scale field experiment over 4 years, contrasting unmanaged forest (control) with managed forest (two silvicultural treatments) in Maine, USA. We examined the relationships between habitat selection and personality traits in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and southern red‐backed voles (Myodes gapperi). We found that personality traits were correlated with microhabitat selection at multiple spatial scales. Furthermore, land‐use change altered these patterns of selection; resulting in either the loss of personality‐associated selection or in novel patterns of selection in managed forests. These findings suggest that promoting structural complexity at multiple spatial scales, such as by interspersing stands of mature forest with managed stands, may maintain a variety of intraspecific habitat selection patterns and the associated ecological outcomes.

show abstract

Turning Shy on a Winter's Day: Effects of Season on Personality and Stress Response in Microtus arvalis

Cited by 32 publications

References 73 publications

Personality traits and behavioural profiles in the domestic canary are affected by sex and photoperiod

Personality traits and behavioural profiles in the domestic canary are affected by sex and photoperiod

A meeting of mice and men: rodent impacts on food security, human diseases and wildlife conservation; ecosystem benefits; fascinating biological models

Land‐use change alters associations between personality and microhabitat selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About