Abstract
Consistent inter-individual variation in behaviour within a population, widely referred to as personality variation, can be affected by environmental context. Feedbacks between an individual’s behaviour and state can strengthen (positive feedback) or weaken (negative feedback) individual differences when experiences such as predator encounters or winning contests are dependent on behavioural type. We examined the influence of foraging on individual-level consistency in refuge use (a measure of risk-taking, i.e. boldness) in three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, and particularly whether changes in refuge use depended on boldness measured under control conditions. In the control treatment trials with no food, individuals were repeatable in refuge use across repeated trials, and this behavioural consistency did not differ between the start and end of these trials. In contrast, when food was available, individuals showed a higher degree of consistency in refuge use at the start of the trials versus controls but this consistency significantly reduced by the end of the trials. The effect of the opportunity to forage was dependent on behavioural type, with bolder fish varying more in their refuge use between the start and the end of the feeding trials than shyer fish, and boldness positively predicted the likelihood of feeding at the start but not at the end of the trials. This suggests a state-behaviour feedback, but there was no overall trend in how bolder individuals changed their behaviour. Our study shows that personality variation can be suppressed in foraging contexts and a potential but unpredictable role of feedbacks between state and behaviour.
Significance statement
In this experimental study, we examined how foraging influences consistency in risk-taking in individual three-spined sticklebacks. We show that bolder individuals become less consistent in their risk-taking behaviour than shyer individuals during foraging. Some bolder individuals reinforce their risk-taking behaviour, suggesting a positive feedback between state and behaviour, while others converge on the behaviour of shyer individuals, suggesting a negative feedback. In support of a role of satiation in driving negative feedback effects, we found that bolder individuals were more likely to feed at the start but not at the end of the trials. Overall, our findings suggest that foraging can influence personality variation in risk-taking behaviour; however, the role of feedbacks may be unpredictable.
Does betting experience matter in sequential risk taking in horse race wagering?
