Are some individuals generally more behaviorally plastic than others? An experiment with sailfin mollies

Context-dependent trait covariances: how plasticity shapes behavioral syndromes

The study of behavioral syndromes aims to understand among-individual correlations of behavior, yielding insights into the ecological factors and proximate constraints that shape behavior. In parallel, interest has been growing in behavioral plasticity, with results commonly showing that animals vary in their behavioral response to environmental change. These two phenomena are inextricably linked—behavioral syndromes describe cross-trait or cross-context correlations, while variation in behavioral plasticity describes variation in response to changing context. However, they are often discussed separately, with plasticity analyses typically considering a single trait (univariate) across environments, while behavioral trait correlations are studied as multiple traits (multivariate) under one environmental context. Here, we argue that such separation represents a missed opportunity to integrate these concepts. Through observations of multiple traits while manipulating environmental conditions, we can quantify how the environment shapes behavioral correlations, thus quantifying how phenotypes are differentially constrained or integrated under different environmental conditions. Two analytical options exist which enable us to evaluate the context dependence of behavioral syndromes—multivariate reaction norms and character state models. These models are largely two sides of the same coin, but through careful interpretation we can use either to shift our focus to test how the contextual environment shapes trait covariances.

Why are some personalities less plastic?

Individuals from the same population typically show consistent differences in behavioural traits that are frequently associated with differences in contextual plasticity. Yet such a correlation might arise either because some individuals are better able than others to detect environmental changes or because the benefits of being plastic are condition-dependent. To discriminate between these two competing hypotheses, I developed an individual-based model that simulates a population in which individuals of varying fighting ability compete by pairwise interactions using either the fixed hawk (aggressive) or dove (peaceful) strategies or a conditional assessment strategy. As anticipated, the model predicts that only individuals with low (and/or intermediate) fighting ability should use the assessment strategy, giving rise to a negative (or dome-shaped) relationship between aggressiveness and plasticity. The proportion of plastic individuals, however, should be affected not only by the environmental conditions in which individuals live but also by the mechanism that would maintain variation in the traits that determine the benefits of plasticity. In particular, if individual differences in fighting ability may be eroded by natural selection, it predicts that ecological conditions that cause assortative interactions (e.g. high predation risks) would contribute in maintaining variation among individuals in their fighting ability, thereby favouring greater plasticity.