Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 537–549 | Cite as

Influences of size and sex on invasive species aggression and native species vulnerability: a case for modern regression techniques

Original Research

Abstract

Animal behaviour is of fundamental importance but is often overlooked in biological invasion research. A problem with such studies is that they may add pressure to already threatened species and subject vulnerable individuals to increased risk. One solution is to obtain the maximum possible information from the generated data using a variety of statistical techniques, instead of solely using simple versions of linear regression or generalized linear models as is customary. Here, we exemplify and compare the use of modern regression techniques which have very different conceptual backgrounds and aims (negative binomial models, zero-inflated regression, and expectile regression), and which have rarely been applied to behavioural data in biological invasion studies. We show that our data display overdispersion, which is frequent in ecological and behavioural data, and that conventional statistical methods such as Poisson generalized linear models are inadequate in this case. Expectile regression is similar to quantile regression and allows the estimation of functional relationships between variables for all portions of a probability distribution and is thus well suited for modelling boundaries in polygonal relationships or cases with heterogeneous variances which are frequent in behavioural data. We applied various statistical techniques to aggression in invasive mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, and the concomitant vulnerability of native toothcarp, Aphanius iberus, in relation to individual size and sex. We found that medium sized male G. holbrooki carry out the majority of aggressive acts and that smaller and medium size A. iberus are most vulnerable. Of the regression techniques used, only negative binomial models and zero-inflated and expectile Poisson regressions revealed these relationships.

Keywords

Gambusia holbrooki Aphanius iberus Aggressive interactions Expectile Poisson regression Negative binomial models Size 

Supplementary material

11160_2015_9391_MOESM1_ESM.txt (2 kb)
Table S1. Raw data used in this manuscript (TXT 2 kb)
11160_2015_9391_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Appendix S1. R script to exemplify the use of four regression techniques (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Alcaraz C, García-Berthou E (2007) Life history variation of an invasive fish (Gambusia holbrooki) along a salinity gradient. Biol Cons 139:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcaraz C, Bisazza A, García-Berthou E (2008) Salinity mediates the competitive interactions between invasive mosquitofish and an endangered fish. Oecologia 155:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alemadi SD, Jenkins DG (2008) Behavioral constraints for the spread of the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Poeciliidae). Biol Inv 10:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (2002) Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J Wildl Manag 66:912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson D (1994) Temperature and organism size—a biological law for ectotherms. Adv Ecol Res 25:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchamp G (2013) Is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance underestimated? Anim Behav 85:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benejam L, Alcaraz C, Sasal P, Simon-Levert G, García-Berthou E (2009) Life history and parasites of the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) along a latitudinal gradient. Biol Inv 11:2265–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benson KE, Basolo AL (2006) Male–male competition and the sword in male swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim Behav 71:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernardo JM, Ilhéu M, Matona P, Costa AM (2003) Interannual variation of fish assemblage structure in a Mediterranean river: implications of streamflow on the dominance of native or exotic species. Riv Res App 19:521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnard D, Gozlan RE, Griffiths SW (2008) The role of pheromones in freshwater fish. J Fish Biol 73:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cade BS, Dong Q (2008) A quantile count model of water depth constraints on Cape Sable seaside sparrows. J Anim Ecol 77:47–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cade BS, Noon BR (2003) A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front Ecol Env 1:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmona-Catot G, Magellan K, García-Berthou E (2013) Temperature-specific competition between invasive mosquitofish and an endangered cyprinodontid fish. PLoS ONE 8:e54734PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2005) Lessons from the establishment of exotic species: a meta-analytical case study using birds. J Anim Ecol 74:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chamaillé-Jammes S, Blumstein DT (2012) A case for quantile regression in behavioral ecology: getting more out of flight initiation distance data. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapple DG, Simmonds SM, Wong BBM (2012) Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends Ecol Evol 27:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conrad JL, Weinersmith KL, Brodin T, Saltz JB, Sih A (2011) Behavioural syndromes in fishes: a review with implications for ecology and fisheries management. J Fish Biol 78:395–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Courtenay WR, Meffe GK (1989) Small fishes in strange places: a review of introduced Poeciliids. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF (eds) Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 319–331Google Scholar
  20. Desmarais BA, Harden JJ (2013) Testing for zero inflation in count models: bias correction for the Vuong test. Stata J 13:810–835Google Scholar
  21. Dugatkin LA, Earley RL (2004) Individual recognition, dominance hierarchies and winner and loser effects. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1537–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunham JB, Cade BS, Terrell JW (2002) Influences of spatial and temporal variation on fish-habitat relationships defined by regression quantiles. Trans Am Fish Soc 131:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Earley RL, Tinsley M, Dugatkin LA (2003) To see or not to see: does previewing a future opponent affect the contest behavior of green swordtail males (Xiphophorus helleri). Naturwissen 90:226–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Efron B (1992) Poisson overdispersion estimates based on the method of asymmetric maximum likelihood. J Am Stat Assoc 87:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans JP, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (2011) Ecology and evolution of Poeciliid fishes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fobert E, Fox MG, Ridgeway M, Copp GH (2011) Heated competition: how climate change will affect non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and native perch Perca fluviatilis interactions in the U.K. J Fish Biol 79:1592–1607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freyhof J, Brooks E (2011) European red list of freshwater fishes. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  28. García-Berthou E (1999) Food of introduced mosquitofish: ontogenetic diet shift and prey selection. J Fish Biol 55:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. García-Berthou E, Alcaraz C, Pou-Rovira Q, Zamora L, Coenders G, Feo C (2005) Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic species in Europe. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holway DA, Suarez AV (1999) Animal behavior: an essential component of invasion biology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:328–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev 81:33–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huntingford F, Turner A (1987) Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackman S (2012) pscl: classes and methods for R developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory, Stanford University. Department of Political Science, Stanford University. Stanford, CA. R package version 1.04.4. http://pscl.stanford.edu/
  35. Johnson CN, VanDerWal J (2009) Evidence that dingoes limit abundance of a mesopredator in eastern Australian forests. J Appl Ecol 46:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones HP, Tershy BR, Zavaleta ES, Croll DA, Keitt BS, Finkelstein ME, Howald GR (2008) Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Cons Biol 22:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller RP, Frang K, Lodge DM (2008) Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. Cons Biol 22:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koenker R (2011) Additive models for quantile regression: model selection and confidence bandaids. Braz J Probab Stat 25:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 4:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lapointe NWR, Light T (2012) Landscape-scale determinants of non-native fish communities. Divers Dist 18:282–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lever C (1996) Naturalized fishes of the world. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, World Conservation Union, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  43. Magellan K, Kaiser H (2010) Male aggression and mating opportunity in a Poeciliid fish. Afr Zool 45:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Magellan K, Magurran AE (2007) Behavioural profiles: individual consistency in male mating behaviour under varying sex ratios. Anim Behav 74:1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Magellan K, Pettersson LB, Magurran AE (2005) Quantifying male attractiveness and mating behaviour through phenotypic size manipulation in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin TG, Wintle BA, Rhodes JR, Kuhnert PM, Field SA, Low-Choy SJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham HJ (2005) Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett 8:1235–1246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maynard-Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meffe GK, Snelson FF (1989) The ecology and evolution of live bearing fishes. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  49. Menge BA, Gouhier TC, Freidenburg T, Lubchenko J (2011) Linking long-term, large-scale climatic and environmental variability to patterns of marine invertebrate recruitment: toward explaining ‘unexplained’ variation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 400:236–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mercado-Silva N, Olden JD, Maxted JT, Hrabik TR, Vander Zanden MJ (2006) Forecasting the spread of invasive rainbow smelt in the Laurentian Great Lakes region of North America. Conserv Biol 20:1740–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moyle PB, Marchetti MP (2006) Predicting invasions success: freshwater fishes in California as a model. Bioscience 56:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Hara RB, Kotze DJ (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park D, Propper CR (2002) Pheromones from female mosquitofish at different stages of reproduction differentially affect male sexual activity. Copeia 2002:1113–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pluess T, Cannon R, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Bacher S (2012) When are eradication campaigns successful? A test of common assumptions. Biol Inv 14:1365–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Priddis E, Rader R, Belk M, Schaalje B, Merkley S (2009) Can separation along the temperature niche axis promote coexistence between native and invasive species? Divers Distrib 15:682–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pyke GH (2008) Plague minnow or mosquito fish? A review of the biology and impacts of introduced Gambusia species. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
  58. Rahel FJ, Olden JD (2008) Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:521–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rehage JS, Sih A (2004) Dispersal behavior, boldness and the link to invasiveness: a comparison of four Gambusia species. Biol Invasions 6:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rehage JS, Barnett BK, Sih A (2005a) Foraging behaviour and invasiveness: do invasive Gambusia exhibit higher feeding rates and broader diets than their non-invasive relatives? Ecol Fresh Fish 14:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rehage JS, Barnett BK, Sih A (2005b) Behavioural responses to a novel predator and competitor of invasive mosquitofish and their non-invasive relatives (Gambusia sp.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:256–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rehage JS, Dunlop KL, Loftus WF (2009) Antipredator responses by native mosquitofish to non-native cichlids: an examination of the role of prey naïveté. Ethology 115:1046–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rincón PA, Correas AM, Risueño P, Lobón-Cerviá J (2002) Interaction between the introduced eastern mosquitofish and two autochthonous Spanish toothcarps. J Fish Biol 61:1560–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz Navarro A, Oliva Paterna FJ (2012) Fartet—Aphanius iberus. In: Salvador A, Elvira B (eds) Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, MadridGoogle Scholar
  65. Scharf FS, Juanes F, Sutherland M (1998) Inferring ecological relationships from the edges of scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79:448–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmidt TS, Clements WH, Cade BS (2012) Estimating risks to aquatic life using quantile regression. Fresh Sci 31:709–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sih A, Bell AM (2008) Insights for behavioral ecology from behavioral syndromes. Adv Study Behav 38:227–281PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simberloff D (2009) We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biol Inv 11:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stohlgren TJ, Barnett D, Flather C, Fuller P, Peterjohn B, Kartesz J, Master LL (2006) Species richness and patterns of invasion in plants, birds and fishes in the United States. Biol Inv 8:427–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Svensson PA, Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM (2012) A high aggression strategy for smaller males. PLoS ONE 7:e43121PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thompson KA, Hill JE, Nico LG (2012) Eastern mosquitofish resists invasion bionindigenous poeciliids through agonistic behaviours. Biol Inv 14:1515–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL (2007) Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88:2766–2772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vilizzi L, Stakėnas S, Copp GH (2012) Use of constrained additive and quadratic ordination in fish habitat studies: an application to invasive pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in an English stream. Fundam Appl Limnol 180:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57:307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilson P (2015) The misuse of the Vuong test for non-nested models to test for zero-inflation. Econ Lett 127:51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yee TW (2008) VGAM family functions for quantile regression. http://test.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~yee/VGAM/doc/qreg.pdf
  77. Yee TW (2014) VGAM: vector generalized linear and additive models. R package version 0.9-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=VGAM
  78. Zeileis A, Kleiber C, Jackman S (2008) Regression models for count data in R. J Stat Softw 27. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i08/
  79. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GRECO, Institute of Aquatic EcologyUniversity of GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations