Advertisement

The fast and the curious: locomotor performance and exploratory behaviour in eastern chipmunks

  • Sasha L. Newar
  • Vincent Careau
Original Article

Abstract

Although locomotor performance and behaviour are closely linked to survival in many wild animals, our understanding of the potentially important co-adaptations between locomotor performance and behaviour is still limited. Our objective was to quantify the among-individual correlation (rind) and within-individual correlation (re) between locomotor performance and personality traits in wild eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus). We repeatedly measured sprint speed, docility, and exploration behaviour and found that all traits were significantly repeatable. Sprint speed was not correlated with docility and time spent in the centre of the open field. However, sprint speed was significantly and negatively correlated with distance moved in the open field at both the among-individual (rind = − 0.59) and the within-individual (re = − 0.54) levels. Thus, individuals with high locomotor performance are less explorative in a novel environment, which is somewhat counter-intuitive and opposite to the predictions generated by the pace-of-life syndrome and the “phenotypic compensation” hypotheses. Our results suggest that sprint speed and exploratory behaviour are co-specialised traits as they can reinforce each other’s effects in reducing predation risk. In refuging species such as chipmunks (i.e. individuals have to leave a refuge to forage), low exploration levels may reduce exposure to predators and high sprint speed may further reduce the probability of capture given an encounter with a predator. Thus, looking at how locomotor performance and behaviour interact and contribute to fitness is key to understanding the multivariate architecture of—and co-adaptations among—ecologically relevant complex phenotypes.

Significance statement

A large number of studies have looked at the relationships between locomotor performance and behaviour at the inter-specific, among-individual, and within-individual levels, with mixed results. We found a significant and negative relationship between sprint speed and distance moved during an open-field test, which goes against the prediction of the pace-of-life syndrome and the “phenotypic compensation” hypotheses. Instead, these results support the “trait co-specialisation” hypothesis. In refuging animals such as chipmunks, reactive behaviours (being shy and less exploratory) may reduce exposure to predators and high sprint speed may further the probability of escaping given an encounter with a predator. Taken all together, the negative among- and within-individual correlations and sensitivity to the same covariates (parasites, and to a less extent body mass) suggest that sprint speed and exploratory behaviour are co-adapted in eastern chipmunks.

Keywords

Mixed model Repeatability Sprint speed Personality Tamias striatus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Lucy Bellemare, Ilias Berberi, Caitlin Murphy, Hazel Panique, and Jasmine Veitch who have helped to collect the sprint speed data by acting as second observers. We thank Amy Villareal and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft of the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

SLN and VC conceived and designed the experiment. SLN and VC gathered and analysed the data. SLN and VC wrote the manuscript.

Funding information

This research was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) discovery grant and by Canada Research Chair funds to VC.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Our protocol was approved by the University of Ottawa Animal Care Committee (protocol number: BL-2659-A1), certified by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and licensed under the Ontario Animals for Research Act.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2445_MOESM1_ESM.csv (11 kb)
ESM 1 (CSV 11 kb)

References

  1. Adriaenssens B (2010) Individual variation in behaviour—personality and performance of brown trout in the wild. PhD thesis, University of GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Araya-Ajoy YG, Mathot K, Dingemanse NJ (2015) An approach to estimate short-term, long-term and reaction norm repeatability. Methods Ecol Evol 6:1462–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer J (1973) Test for emotionality in rats and mice: a review. Anim Behav 21(2):205–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80065-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23(2):347–361.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/23.2.347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauwens D, Thoen C (1981) Escape tactics and vulnerability to predation associated with reproduction in the lizard Lacerta vivipara. J Anim Ecol 50(3):733–743.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell AM, Sih A (2007) Exposure to predation generates personality in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ecol Lett 10(9):828–834.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01081.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett GF (1972) Further studies on the chipmunk warble, Cuterebra emasculator (Diptera: Cuterebridae). Can J Zool 50(6):861–864.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z72-116 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein DT, Runyan A, Seymour M, Nicodemus A, Ozgul A, Ransler F, Im S, Stark T, Zugmeyer C, Daniel JC (2004) Locomotor ability and wariness in yellow-bellied marmots. Ethology 110(8):615–634.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.01000.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein DT, Lea AJ, Olson LE, Martin JGA (2010) Heritability of anti-predatory traits: vigilance and locomotor performance in marmots. J Evol Biol 23(5):879–887.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01967.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boon AK, Réale D, Boutin S (2007) The interaction between personality, offspring fitness, and food abundance in North American red squirrel. Ecol Lett 10:1094–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brommer JE, Class B (2017) Phenotypic correlations capture between-individual correlations underlying behavioral syndromes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71(3):50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2278-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler D, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel DJ (2009) ASReml-R reference manual, release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Careau V, Garland T Jr (2012) Performance, personality, and energetics: correlation, causation, and mechanism. Physiol Biochem Zool 85:543–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Careau V, Wilson RS (2017a) Of uberfleas and krakens: detecting trade-offs using mixed models. Integr Comp Biol 00:000–000Google Scholar
  15. Careau V, Wilson RS (2017b) Performance trade-offs and ageing in the ‘world’s greatest athletes’. Proc R Soc B 284(1860):20171048.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1048 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Careau V, Réale D, Humphries MM, Thomas D (2010a) The pace of life under artificial selection: personality, energy expenditure and longevity are correlated in domestic dogs. Am Nat 175(6):753–758.  https://doi.org/10.1086/652435 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Careau V, Thomas DW, Humphries MM (2010b) Energetic cost of bot fly parasitism in free-ranging eastern chipmunks. Oecologia 162(2):303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1466-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Careau V, Montiglio PO, Garant D, Pelletier F, Speakman JR, Humphries MM, Réale D (2015) Energy expenditure and personality in wild chipmunks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69(4):653–661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1876-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke MF, Dasilva KB, Lair H, Pocklington R, Kramer DL, McLaughlin RL (1993) Site familiarity affects escape behavior of the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Oikos 66(3):533–537.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper WE Jr, Vitt LJ, Hedges R, Huey RB (1990) Locomotor impairment and defense in gravid lizards (Eumeces laticeps): behavioral shift in activity may offset costs of reproduction in an active forager. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. da Silva KB, Mahan C, da Silva J (2002) The trill of the chase: eastern chipmunks call to warn kin. J Mammal 83(2):546–552.  https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<0546:TTOTCE>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Hucko JA (1999) Trait compensation and cospecialization in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 58:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond K, Trovillion D, Allen KE, Malela KM, Noble DA, Powell R, Eifler DA, Gifford ME (2014) Individual (co)variation of field behavior and locomotor performance in curly tailed lizards. J Zool 294(4):248–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82(1):39–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dingemanse NJ, Réale D (2005) Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour 142(9):1159–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853905774539445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA, Nakagawa S (2012) Defining behavioural syndromes and the role of ‘syndrome deviation’ in understanding their evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66(11):1543–1548.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1416-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Djawdan M (1993) Locomotor performance of bipedal and quadrupedal heteromyid rodents. Funct Ecol 7(2):195–202.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2389887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Djawdan M, Garland T Jr (1988) Maximal running speeds of bipedal and quadrupedal rodents. J Mammal 69:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duckworth RA (2009) The role of behavior in evolution: a search for mechanism. Evol Ecol Res 23(4):513–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-008-9252-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friedman WA, Garland T Jr, Dohm MR (1992) Individual variation in locomotor behavior and maximal oxygen consumption in mice. Physiol Behav 52:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garland T Jr (1999) Laboratory endurance capacity predicts variation in field locomotor behaviour among lizard species. Anim Behav 58(1):77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1132 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garland T Jr, Losos JB (1994) Ecological morphology of locomotor performance in squamate reptiles. In: Wainwright PC, Reilly SM (eds) Ecological morphology: integrative organismal biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 240–302Google Scholar
  33. Hall CS (1934) Emotional behavior in the rat: defecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. J Comp Psychol 18(3):385–403.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houslay TM, Wilson AJ (2017) Avoiding the misuse of BLUP in behavioural ecology. Behav Ecol 28(4):948–952.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx023 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huey RB, Dunham AE (1987) Repeatability of locomotor performance in natural populations of the lizard Sceloporus merriami. Evolution 41(5):1116–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1987.tb05880.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Husak JF (2006a) Does speed help you survive? A test with collared lizards of different ages. Funct Ecol 20(1):174–179.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01069.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Husak JF (2006b) Does survival depend on how fast you can run or how fast you do run? Funct Ecol 20(6):1080–1086.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01195.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Irschick DJ, Garland T Jr (2001) Integrating function and ecology in studies of adaptation: investigations of locomotor capacity as a model system. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard JF (2008) How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evol Ecol Res 10:177–196Google Scholar
  40. Jansen ASP, Nguyen XV, Karpitskiy V, Mettenleiter TC, Loewy AD (1995) Central command neurons of the sympathetic nervous system—basis of the fight-or-flight response. Science 270(5236):644–646.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5236.644 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) The precision of fixed effects estimates from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53(3):983–997.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kern EMA, Robinson D, Gass E, Godwin J, Langerhans RB (2016) Correlated evolution of personality, morphology and performance. Anim Behav 117:79–86PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kluen E, Siitari H, Brommer JE (2014) Testing for between individual correlations of personality and physiological traits in a wild bird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Layne JN, Benton AH (1954) Some speeds of small mammals. J Mammal 35(1):103–104.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1376079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Le Galliard J-F, Paquet M, Cisel M, Montes-Poloni L (2013) Personality and the pace of-life syndrome: variation and selection on exploration, metabolism and locomotor performances. Funct Ecol 27(1):136–144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Losos JB, Schoener TW, Spiller DA (2004) Predator-induced behaviour shifts and natural selection in field-experimental lizard populations. Nature 432(7016):505–508.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03039 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martin JGA, Réale D (2008) Temperament, risk assessment and habituation to novelty in eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 75(1):309–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Montiglio PO, Garant D, Thomas DW, Réale D (2010) Individual variation in temporal activity patterns in open-field tests. Anim Behav 80(5):905–912.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Montiglio PO, Garant D, Pelletier F, Réale D (2012) Personality differences are related to long-term stress reactivity in a population of wild eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 84(4):1071–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Niemelä PT, Dingemanse NJ, Alioravainen N, Vainikka A, Kortet R (2013) Personality pace-of-life hypothesis: testing genetic associations among personality and life history. Behav Ecol 24(4):935–941.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noldus LPJJ (1991) The Observer: a software system for collection and analysis of observational data. Behav Res Methods Instrum 23(3):415–429.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rand AS (1964) Inverse relationship between temperature ans shyness in the lizard Anolis lineatopus. Ecology 45(4):863–864.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1934935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ et al (2009) Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92:135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Réale D, Garant D, Humphries MM, Bergeron P, Careau V, Montiglio PO (2010) Personality and the emergence of the pace-of-life syndrome concept at the population level. Philos Trans R Soc B 365(1560):4051–4063.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ricklefs RE, Wikelski M (2002) The physiology/life-history nexus. Trends Ecol Evol 17:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodel HG, Zapka M, Talke S, Kornatz T, Bruchner B, Hedler C (2015) Survival costs of fast exploration during juvenile life in a small mammal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69(2):205–217.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1833-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodríguez-Prieto I, Martín J, Fernández-Juricic E (2010) Habituation to low-risk predators improves body condition in lizards. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64(12):1937–1945.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1004-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Samia DSM, Blumstein DT, Stankowich T, Cooper WEJ (2015) Fifty years of chasing lizards: new insights advance optimal escape theory. Biol Rev 91:349–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sinervo B, Svensson E (2002) Correlational selection and the evolution of genomic architecture. Heredity 89(5):329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800148 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith BR, Blumstein DT (2008) Fitness consequences of personality: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 19(2):448–455.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Berkum FH, Huey RB, Tsuji JS, Garland T Jr (1989) Repeatability of individual differences in locomotor performance and body size during early ontogeny of the lizard Sceloporus occidentalis (Baird & Girard). Funct Ecol 3(1):97–105.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2389680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van de Pol MV, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh RN, Cummins RA (1976) The open-field test: a critical review. Psychol Bull 83(3):482–504.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.3.482 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. White SJ, Kells TJ, Wilson AJ (2016) Metabolism, personality and pace of life in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behaviour 153:1517–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiersma P, Munoz-Garcia A, Walker A, Williams JB (2007) Tropical birds have a slow pace of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(22):9340–9345.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702212104 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wikelski M, Spinney L, Schelsky W, Scheuerlein A, Gwinner E (2003) Slow pace of life in tropical sedentary birds: a common-garden experiment on four stonechat populations from different latitudes. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2383–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolak ME (2012) nadiv: an R package to create relatedness matrices for estimating non-additive genetic variances in animal models. Methods Ecol Evol 3:792–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  3. 3.Canada Research Chair in Functional EcologyOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations