
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39289453
72550
10.1038/s41598-024-72550-5
Article
Predator exposure early in life shapes behavioral development and individual variation in a clonal fish
Scherer U. u.k.scherer@gmail.com

123
Laskowski K. L. 34
Kressler M. M. 35
Ehlman S. M. 123
Wolf M. 13
Bierbach D. 123
1 https://ror.org/03v4gjf40 grid.6734.6 0000 0001 2292 8254 SCIoI Excellence Cluster, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany
2 https://ror.org/01hcx6992 grid.7468.d 0000 0001 2248 7639 Faculty of Life Sciences, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
3 https://ror.org/01nftxb06 grid.419247.d 0000 0001 2108 8097 Department of Fish Biology, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, 12587 Berlin, Germany
4 https://ror.org/05rrcem69 grid.27860.3b 0000 0004 1936 9684 Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA
5 https://ror.org/03yghzc09 grid.8391.3 0000 0004 1936 8024 Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK
17 9 2024
17 9 2024
2024
14 2166820 2 2024
9 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Predation risk is one of the most important factors generating behavioral differences among populations. In addition, recent attention focusses on predation as a potential driver of patterns of individual behavioral variation within prey populations. Previous studies provide mixed results, reporting either increased or decreased among-individual variation in response to risk. Here, we take an explicit developmental approach to documenting how among-individual variation develops over time in response to predator exposure, controlling for both genetic and experiential differences among individuals. We reared juveniles of naturally clonal Amazon mollies, Poecilia formosa, either with or without a predator visible during feedings over 4 weeks and analyzed activity during feedings, time spent feeding and number of visits to the feeding spot. (I) Predator-exposed fish did not differ from control fish in average feeding behavior, but they were less active during feeding trials. (II) In the absence of the predator, substantial changes in among-individual variation over time were detected: among-individual differences in feeding duration increased whereas differences in activity decreased, but there were no changes in feeder visits. In contrast, in the presence of a predator, among-individual variation in all three behaviors was stable over time and often lower compared to control conditions. Our work suggests that predation risk may have an overall stabilizing effect on the development of individual variation and that differences in predation risk may well lead to population-wide differences in among-individual behavioral variation.

Subject terms

Ecology
Behavioural ecology
Freshwater ecology
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EXC 2002/1, “Science of Intelligence” project number 390523135 BI 1828/2-1 BI 1828/2-1 EXC 2002/1, “Science of Intelligence” project number 390523135 EXC 2002/1, “Science of Intelligence” project number 390523135 EXC 2002/1, “Science of Intelligence” project number 390523135 Scherer U. Laskowski K. L. Kressler M. M. Ehlman S. M. Wolf M. Bierbach D. Technische Universität Berlin (3136)Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Predation risk is one of the major forces of natural selection shaping virtually every aspect of prey behavior, including, for example, grouping, activity, collective decision-making, mating, and foraging1–7. Many classic studies have focused on how predation risk influences average behavior at the population level. For example, poeciliid fish from high predation sites are on average bolder, more explorative, and more active than their conspecifics from low-predation sites8–11. And, with increasing predation risk, reef fish (several species, including parrotfish, Sparisoma aurofrenatum and surgeonfish, Acanthurus bahianus) consume drastically less food but fed at a faster rate12.

More recently, studies looking at consistent among-individual behavioral variation (aka individuality or animal personality), have highlighted that not all individuals within a population respond to a stimuli or cue in the same way13–19. This means that individuals consistently differ in their response to predation risk, producing patterns of consistent among-individual variation20–24 and co-variation among behaviors25–28. For example, when perceived predation risk was highest, Western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, exhibited the greatest consistent among-individual behavioral variation22. Similarly, wild-caught mud crabs, Panopeus herbstii, expressed more pronounced consistent among-individual variation in refuge use when presented with predator cues compared to a control condition were no such cues were presented21. Predation risk has thus been implicated as an important factor driving the emergence and maintenance of consistent individual behavioral variation29. However, not all studies found predation risk to lead to greater consistent among-individual variation in behavior within populations; several studies report a reverse pattern30,31. For example, wild-caught guppies, Poecilia reticulata, have been shown to exhibit reduced among-individual variation in their risk-taking behavior when presented with a computer-animated predator30.

This discrepancy in results (higher vs. lower degree of consistent among-individual behavioral variation in response to risk) may be rooted in several contributing factors. First, and perhaps most importantly, individual experience can play a vital role. That means, among-individual differences in the timeline, duration, intensity, or number of exposures can determine an individual’s risk-perception and, thus, its reaction towards predator cues32–34. In particular, exposure to predator cues early in life can have substantial and long-lasting effects35–37. Predicting such experiential effects may not be straightforward, for example, repeated exposures to threats can have diverse influences on behavior, alternatively leading to habituation or sensitization to the threat34. Second, populations can have diverse evolutionary histories (predator absence vs. predator presence, or spatial–temporal fluctuations in predation risk) leading to differences in genetic backgrounds (heterogenic populations where different genotypes may or may not react differently to predation risk vs. homogenic populations where individuals may behave more uniformly)29,38,39. Therefore, for a comprehensive understanding of how predation risk shapes behavioral variation at the individual level, we need studies that carefully control for both experiential and evolutionary backgrounds. Specifically, studies that take an explicit developmental approach to documenting components of behavioral variation in response to predation risk over time can foster our understanding of how and when predation risk generates patterns of behavioral divergence versus convergence40–42.

In the current study, we used a controlled experimental set-up to isolate the effects of predator exposure early in life on the development of individual behavioral variation. We do so by leveraging the naturally clonal Amazon molly, P. formosa. This clonal fish allows for the unique opportunity to genetically standardize test individuals and therefore isolate the effects of salient ecological experiences on patterns of individual behavioral development43. Two weeks after birth, juveniles were separated into virtually identical experimental environments. For the following 4 weeks, individuals were either reared in a predator treatment, where they were exposed to a natural piscine predator while foraging (i.e., visual contact with a convict cichlid during feedings), or a control treatment, where there was no predator present while foraging. In both treatments, we recorded individual feeding behavior (time spent feeding and number of visits to the feeding spot) and activity (average swimming speed) during periods where food was available; allowing us to estimate patterns of both within- and among-individual behavioral variation and hence estimate each behavior’s repeatability. Repeatability is a common metric used to quantify the degree of individuality within a population; it describes the extent to which differences among individuals explain the overall observed variation (including both among- and within-individual variation) in a given trait18,44,45. Amazon mollies are known to show strong individuality in both activity and feeding behavior when reared under benign control conditions46–48.

We predicted that (I) the predator exposure would influence average behavior at a population level, with fish in the predator treatment avoiding the predator, and therefore spending less time feeding, visiting the feeding spot less frequently, and being less active, compared to the control group. We further predicted that (II) individual behavioral variation in the three observed behaviors (time spent feeding, visits to the feeding spot, activity) would be altered by the predator exposure. Given that the predator may induce a trade-off between the relative risk of approaching and the reward of foraging, we predicted that fish in the predator treatment develop greater among-individual differences in behavior if they resolve this trade-off differently, leading to divergence (e.g., because individuals differ in their perception of risk or vulnerability)32,33. Alternatively, given the salience of predation risk on small schooling fish and the lack of genetic variation among our fish, we could instead expect individuals to conform on a behavioral response: avoid the predator or learn to ignore it30.

Results

(I) Reduced activity in the presence of the predator but no effect on feeding behavior

We found neither a difference in feeding duration (Fig. 1a) nor in the number of visits to the feeding spot (Fig. 1b) between the predator and control treatment (Supplementary Table S1). And in both treatments, fish showed similar changes in feeding behavior over time (i.e., there was no evidence of a treatment x week interaction, Supplementary Table S1): fish significantly increased their time spent feeding (χ2 = 111.47, df = 1, p < 0.001; Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 1a), and visited the feeding spot significantly more often (χ2 = 11.14, df = 1, p = 0.001; Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 1b) as they got older. Fish in the predator treatment were generally less active than fish in the control treatment (χ2 = 4.305, df = 1, p = 0.038; Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 1c). There were no differences in how fish in the two treatments changed their activity over time (i.e., no treatment x week interaction, Supplementary Table S1) but rather individuals in both treatments decreased their activity over the course of the experiment (χ2 = 135.17, df = 1, p < 0.001; Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 1c). For all three behaviors, the main effects of treatment and week explained a modest amount of variation (marginal R2 < 0.19 for all three behaviors; Supplementary Table S1).Fig. 1 Effects of predator exposure on average behavior over time. (a–c) Presented are raw data (points, jittered horizontally for illustration purposes) and regression lines (gray = predator absence, blue = predator presence) with 95% confidence intervals, estimated from models including a non-significant treatment-week interaction term. (a, b) In both treatments, individuals increased their feeding duration and the number of visits to the feeding spot over time, but no difference between treatments was detected. (c) In the presence of the predator, individuals were on average less active than in the control, and in both treatments, individuals became less active over time.

(II) Stable and low among-individual variation in response to predator exposure

In general, we found that fish reared under predator exposure exhibited comparatively lower magnitudes of among-individual variation, and these levels of individual variation were very stable over time. In contrast, fish reared in the absence of the predator showed greater changes in the magnitude of among-individual variation over the 4-week experiment. The exact patterns of individual behavioral variation in our three different behaviors (feeding duration, visits to feeding spot, activity) differed from each other, both across the two treatment conditions and over time (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Effects of predator exposure on variance components. Shown are (a, e, i) repeatabilities, (b, f, j) among-individual variation, (c, g, k) within-individual variation, and (d, h, l) individual BLUPs (best linear unbiased predictors, i.e., random intercepts for individuals) for individuals in the predator (blue) vs. control (gray) treatment.

For time spent feeding, we found that repeatability significantly increased over the course of the experiment when the predator was absent (i.e., in the control treatment) (Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 2a). The pattern was mainly driven by increases in among-individual variation, as within-individual behavioral variation remained stable throughout the course of the experiment (Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 2b,c). This resulted in a fanning-out pattern of individual BLUPs (best linear unbiased predictors, i.e., random intercepts for individuals) over the 4 experimental weeks (Fig. 2d). In contrast, in the predator treatment, both among-individual variation and repeatability remained stable and significantly lower than in the control treatment (Fig. 2a,b, Supplementary Table S2).

For the two other behaviors, number of visits to the feeding spot and activity, we found similar differences in the patterns of among-individual behavioral variation over time between the control and predators treatments, in that, among-individual variation was initially higher in the control treatment fish compared to the predator-exposed fish and decreased over the course of the experiment (the latter is statistically significant for activity only) (Fig. 2f and j; Supplementary Tables S3-S4), consequently, we observed a fanning-in pattern of individual BLUPs for activity in the control fish (Fig. 2l). In contrast, predator treatment fish exhibited more stable patterns of among-individual variation over the 4 weeks (Supplementary Tables S3-S4, Fig. 2e-l). For both behaviors, within-individual variation remained stable over time and similar in both treatments (Supplementary Tables S3-S4, Fig. 2g and k).

Interestingly, we found significant brood differences in feeding behavior (time spent feeding as well as number of visits to the feeder) among predator-exposed fish; but not among control-fish (Supplementary Tables S2-S3). Conversely, we found repeatable brood differences in activity among control- but not predator-fish, although, here, the repeatabilities are negligibly low, i.e., these repeatabilities explained only approx. 1–2% of the total variation in activity (Supplementary Tables S4).

Discussion

We tested how exposure to a natural predator early in life may alter the development of consistent among-individual behavioral variation. To do so, we used a clonal fish, the Amazon molly, allowing us to isolate the effects of this salient experience on behavioral development, while controlling for genetic variation43. We found that (I) fish exposed to predators were on average less active than fish reared under control conditions, but there was no change in average feeding behavior (time spent feeding and visits to feeding spot) in response to the predator. (II) In the control, among-individual variation changed substantially over time, with contrasting patterns depending on the behavior of interest: we observed a strong divergence, i.e., increase in among-individual variation, in the time fish spent feeding, and a convergence, i.e., decrease in among-individual variation, in activity; but no changes in feeder visits. Predator-exposed fish, on the other hand, showed no signs of change in among-individual variation over time and showed an overall tendency to behave more similarly to each other compared to control fish.

In line with much previous work, individuals were on average less active in the presence of the predator6,49, though there was no decrease in their average feeding behavior (feeding duration and number of visits to the feeding spot) compared to control individuals. The predator’s lack of influence on feeding behavior may be explained by the predation risk allocation hypothesis, which postulates that as exposure to predation risk increases, individuals reduce their avoidance of predators because the associated loss of energy intake becomes too significant50. Our fish showing predator avoidance by reducing their activity may indicate that the two behaviors differ in their cost–benefit trade-offs. That is, decreasing both activity and feeding can help minimize overall exposure to danger51–53, however, feeding is crucial for energy intake and cannot be entirely avoided, whereas reducing activity may be less costly.

The presence vs. absence of the predator had profound consequences on the development of behavioral variation in our Amazon mollies with two general trends. First, predator-exposed fish exhibited generally lower among-individual variation compared to fish in the predator-free control scenario, indicating that individuals may agree in their perception of the predator as a potential threat and align in their risk assessment, leading to individuals conforming to a behavioral strategy that might reflect an ‘optimal response’30,54. Second, while we observed substantial changes in among-individual variation over time in control fish (see below for developmental processes potentially contributing to the pattern observed), among-individual variation among predator-exposed fish remained stable. The lack of change suggests that individual decisions about how to behave in the presence of the predator were persistent. These results likely indicate that the predator was perceived as a potential threat throughout the experimental period. Previous studies demonstrate innate predator recognition of predator-naïve poeciliid fishes when confronted with piscivorous and omnivorous cichlids3,55 (see56–60 for further studies demonstrating innate predator recognition in fishes). Thus, it is highly likely that behavioral responses of Amazon mollies to the cichlids used in the present study, which are a natural predator for mollies, represent anti-predator responses to perceived predation risk and not just general fear responses towards a new stimulus in our test fish.

Individuals aligning their behavior under potential risk could have significant ecological consequences. In particular, the suppression of the development of among-individual diversity in feeding behavior in response to predator exposure might lead to reduced differences in growth and body size among individuals. This, in turn, could impact a wide range of fitness-relevant intraspecific interactions that are dependent on body size, including competition and hierarchies61,62, and reproductive behaviors63. Additionally, it may affect interspecific interactions, such as prey oddity and consequently predator hunting success64. Reduced variation in activity among individuals may impair processes related to the acquisition of environmental information and therefore adaptation if individuals behaving more alike translates into individuals acquiring similar or fewer information. While we can here only speculate about the consequences of predator-induced homogenization of prey behavior, future studies may address these questions more specifically.

Our finding of behavioral alignment under risk contrasts with several other studies indicating that predation risk promotes among-individual variation20–23. In our study, we strongly reduced variation in both genetic and experiential background by testing genetically identical individuals with no prior predator exposure in a highly standardized procedure. We thereby demonstrate that genes and/or experiential differences may drive the development of among-individual variation under risk as observed elsewhere20–23. Future experimental investigations could build upon our results by manipulating either of these two factors independently (e.g., by using the sexually reproducing parental species of the Amazon molly or different clonal lines), allowing for a more detailed examination of the distinct roles played by genes and experience.

We observed strong among-individual diversification in the time spent feeding when the predator was absent (while no such development was observed in the presence of the predator). Potentially, this pattern could be caused by individuals differing in their perception of whether the feeding apparatus (bottle with feeder) introduced into the tank during feeding trials posed a threat. That means, under control conditions, there might have been higher environmental uncertainty (not clear if the bottle is dangerous) compared to the predator treatment (where the predator itself represents an accurate cue about potential risk) leading to more pronounced differences in how individuals perceive and assess risk65,66. Initial differences in risk assessment may be enhanced via positive behavior-state feedback loops leading to pattern of behavioral divergence over time41,67. This way, even small initial differences in the perception of potential risk could become substantial over time. Future studies may investigate the role of environmental uncertainty and feedback loops in the development on among-individual behavioral variation in more detail.

Regarding activity, we observed high among-individual variation under control conditions to begin with, which then strongly decreased over the experimental period. This pattern of behavioral convergence may potentially be a by-product of individuals becoming on average less active (fewer differences among individuals are possible when the total behavioral range gets smaller), which in turn may reflect a response to the environment, specifically adaptation or habituation. Individual environments were stable and simple throughout the experiment and while being active is energetically costly the expected benefits of exploring this specific experimental environment were rather low. Declining activity could potentially also be caused by illness, however, all fish appeared healthy during trials as well as during the weeks following our experiment.

In conclusion, we observed that predator-exposed fish were on average less active but did not reduce feeding behavior compared to control fish. These population-level responses towards the predator indicate that individuals make strategic decisions about how to avoid a potential threat depending on the specific trade-offs (i.e., no predator avoidance when avoidance is too costly), thereby supporting the risk allocation hypothesis. Importantly, the presence of the predator led to behavioral conformance (potentially reflecting an optimal response) characterized by lower variation among individuals, which remained stable over the course of the experiment, compared to higher and more variable among-individual differences under control conditions. This suggests that when confronted with a predator, individuals align their risk evaluation, whereas in the absence of an immediate threat, variation in environmental perception among individuals may become more pronounced. Thus, next to the effects predators have on average population level behavior, there are also important—and largely overlooked—effects on the development of variation among individuals, with potentially important ecological and evolutionary consequences.

Methods

Study species and animal care

The Amazon molly is a gynogenetically reproducing freshwater fish from the subtropics of North America68–72 and the first discovered clonal vertebrate73,74, stemming from a single hybridization event between a female Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana, and a male sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, about 100,000 years ago71,72; but see75 for a population genomics study suggesting a history of backcrossing with the parental species before the onset of gynogenesis. Gynogenetic reproduction means that Amazon mollies require sperm from one of their parental species to trigger embryonic development, but paternal genetic material is not incorporated into the egg69,71,72 except in rare cases of male DNA fragment introgression76–78. Resulting offspring are therefore genetically identical to their mother and each other (except minute genetic differences created, e.g., by mutation).

Our experimental fish were lab-reared descendants of wild-caught fish originating from waters around the Mexican city of Tampico. Regular molecular checks confirmed that all P. formosa individuals used were clones79. Fish were maintained in large, uni-clonal tanks (200 L) with several P. mexicana males as sperm donors and were fed twice a day (7 days a week) with flake food (TetraMin) and once a week with live or frozen Chironomid larvae. Temperature was maintained at 25 °C with a 12/12 light/dark circle provided.

Experimental procedure

Before this study, we isolated several gravid females from one clonal line into smaller tanks (5 L) equipped with artificial plants and the same water conditions and feeding regime as outlined above. After parturition, we immediately removed the mothers (N = 6) and raised their broods for 2 weeks on Artemia nauplii and dusted flake food (TetraMin). We then placed offspring individually in one of 24 experimental tanks (Fig. 3), which we used in succession as broods were born at different times. We employed a split-brood design, i.e., for each brood, half of the individuals were allocated to the control treatment and the other half were allocated to the predator treatment (in total, N (control) = 24 fish and N (predator) = 23 fish). After 2 days of habituation during which the feeding of the first 2 weeks was continued, we started our experimental feeding trials: fish in the control treatment were presented with a water-filled bottle at which we clamped a food tablet (Fig. 3). Fish in the predator treatment were presented with the same bottle and food tablet but this time, the bottle held a convict cichlid (Amatitlania nigrofasciata, total length: 3.96 cm ± 0.62 cm (mean ± SD)). Predators were allowed to acclimate for 3–5 min inside the bottle, before the bottle was added to the experimental tank. For each trial, predators were chosen randomly from a pool of 100 juvenile cichlids (200 L tank, holding conditions as above). Bottles were put into the tanks every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for 4 weeks so that each molly was presented 12 times with either an empty or a predator bottle. After the bottle with the food tablet was inserted, we gave our fish 30 min to feed and recorded at 2 frames per second from above47. Test individuals were not habituated to the feeder prior to starting experimental feeding trials. On days without feeding trials (i.e. Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays; no feeding on Saturdays), fish were fed in the morning with a food tablet and the remaining food was removed after 3 h. Videos from the feeding trials were tracked using software Ethovision XT (Noldus Inc.). We assessed the time spent feeding as time spent in the feeder area (‘feeding duration’, in %), how many times the fish visited the feeder area (‘number of visits to feeding area’) and average velocity (‘activity’, in cm/sec) for each trial (Fig. 3). In addition to these behavioral variables, we used the detected blob sizes during the tracking as approximation of the fish’s body sizes at the first day of testing (day 1) and at the last day (day 12). Individuals allocated to the two treatments did not differ in body size from each other; either at the beginning or at the end of feeding trials (see Supplementary Figure S1 and Supplementary Table S6 for more details). The experimental set-up, including camera and feeding cylinder position was optimized to capture all facets of the molly behavior, which, however, circumvented the analysis of the cichlids’ behavior. Nevertheless, we observed cichlids swimming regularly in their cylinders during the trials (pers. observation).Fig. 3 Experimental set-up of feeding trials. Illustrated is a single experimental tank (tank size: 27 cm × 27 cm, corners (banded) serve as water in- and outflow to maintain water quality and connect the tank to the filter system) with a permanent shelter (up-side-down flower pot, 4.5 cm lower diameter). The bottle (without predator, bottle: 7.6 cm diameter, bottle area: 11.2 cm), including the feeder (food tablet (Tetra WaferMix) and clamp, feeder area: 4.5 cm diameter), was introduced at a standardized position into the tank during feeding trials.

The predator fish used in this experiment, the convict cichlid, is a natural predator for poeciliid fishes stemming from central America and is introduced worldwide due to releases from the ornamental trade80. Previous studies on closely related poeciliid fishes (P. reticulata and P. mexicana) demonstrate that predator-naïve individuals show typical anti-predator responses (altered mating preferences and avoidance behavior) when presented with predatory and omnivorous cichlids (Cichlasoma salvini, Crenicichla alta, Andinoacara pulcher, Petenia splendida), indicating that the predators are perceived as such3,30,55. These studies further show that behavior expressed in the presence of these predators is distinctly different compared to behavior expressed in the presence of a related, non-predatory species (Xiphophorus hellerii)3,55. See, e.g.,56–60 for further studies demonstrating innate predator recognition in fishes.

Statistical analyses

General details

Statistical analyses were performed in R 4.2.181. LMMs (linear mixed-effect models) were fitted using the lmer-package82. Variance components (repeatabilities, among-, and within-individual variation) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from LMMs following83. We tested whether variance components differed significantly between treatments or weeks by comparing the 95% Cis of estimates (significant difference when CIs do not overlap). Significance for behavioral repeatabilities was derived from the 95% CIs being distinctly different to zero. Model assumptions were verified using q-q plots and residual plots. We included random intercepts for both individuals and broods in all models, however, in cases where brood ID had no explanatory power, the term was removed from the model. Complete model structures, including random terms, are provided as Supplementary Table S1 and S5.

Our three target variables (feeding duration, visits to feeding spot, activity) were not (feeding duration and visits to feeding spot), moderately (activity and feeding duration), or weakly (activity and visits to feeding spot) predictive of each other (for more information and R2 see Supplementary Table S5), we therefore did not consider these variables redundant.

(I) Does predator exposure affect average behavior?

We tested if average behavior differed between the predator and control treatment by building LMMs with the behavior of interest as the response (time spent feeding, visits to the feeding spot, activity) and treatment (predator vs. control) as fixed effects. We further included week (1–4) as a continuous fixed effect to test if average behavior changed over development (e.g., fish getting older or habituating over the course of the experiment), as well as the week x treatment interaction term to test for potential differences between the two treatments in how behavior may have changed over time. The interaction term was removed from the models when non-significant. We included random intercepts for both individuals and broods (N (total, i.e., predator and control) = 559 observations from 47 individuals and 6 broods per model).

(II) Does predator exposure affect individual behavioral variation?

To test if predator exposure affected behavioral variation, we estimated the among- and within-individual variation, and hence repeatability, for each of our three target behaviors (time spent feeding, visits to the feeding spot, activity) in the two treatments (predator vs. control) separately. That is, for each behavior and treatment, we ran an LMM with the behavior of interest as response and experimental week (1–4) as continuous fixed effect (in total 6 models, for each behavior: N (control) = 285 observations from 24 individuals and N (predator) = 274 observations from 23 individuals). As random terms, we included individual intercepts and individual slopes as well intercepts for brood. To assess how variance components may change over the course of the experiment, we ran each of the above 6 models 4 times, where we centered the model to a different week in each run. That is, we ‘sliced’ the model at different time points allowing us to estimate the variance components for each week (because random intercepts are estimated where fixed effects, in this case, ‘week’, are equal to 0)47.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-72550-5.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through overheads on grants BI 1828/2-1 and BI 1828/3-1 and under Germany’s Excellence Strategy EXC 2002/1, “Science of Intelligence” project number 390523135 and by the U.S. National Science Foundation (IOS-2100625). Members of the lab at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries provided invaluable help with animal husbandry, experimental design and logistics; particular thanks are extended to D. Lewis and M. Ebert.

Author contributions

D.B., K.L., M.W., and M.M.K. conceived the project idea and designed the experiment. D.B., K.L., and M.W. secured funding for the experiment. D.B. and K.L. designed the housing tanks and tracking system. M.M.K. conducted the experiment. U.S. and S.M.E. conducted analyses. U.S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. U.S., K.L., M.W., M.K., S.M.E. and D.B. edited manuscript drafts.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Data availability

The data generated in this study are deposited in Figshare.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics declarations and approval for animal experiments

All animal care and experimental protocols complied with local and federal laws and guidelines and were approved by the appropriate governing body in Berlin, Germany, the ‘Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales’ (LaGeSo G-0224/20). Our study is in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines. After experimental trials, fish remained in the husbandry.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Sosna MMG Twomey CR Bak-Coleman J Individual and collective encoding of risk in animal groups Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2019 116 20556 20561 10.1073/pnas.1905585116 31548427
Sosna, M. M. G. et al. Individual and collective encoding of risk in animal groups. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 20556–20561 (2019).31548427
2. Doran C Bierbach D Lukas J Fish waves as emergent collective antipredator behavior Curr. Biol. 2022 32 708 714.e4 10.1016/j.cub.2021.11.068 34942081
Doran, C. et al. Fish waves as emergent collective antipredator behavior. Curr. Biol. 32, 708-714.e4 (2022).34942081
3. Bierbach D Schulte M Herrmann N Predator-induced changes of female mating preferences: Innate and experiential effects BMC Evol. Biol 2011 11 190 10.1186/1471-2148-11-190 21726456
Bierbach, D. et al. Predator-induced changes of female mating preferences: Innate and experiential effects. BMC Evol. Biol 11, 190 (2011).21726456
4. Sih A Predation risk and the evolutionary ecology of reproductive behaviour J. Fish Biol. 1994 45 111 130 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01087.x
Sih, A. Predation risk and the evolutionary ecology of reproductive behaviour. J. Fish Biol. 45, 111–130 (1994).
5. Walls M Kortelainen I Sarvala J Prey responses to fish predation in freshwater communities Ann. Zool. Fennici. 1990 27 183 199
Walls, M., Kortelainen, I. & Sarvala, J. Prey responses to fish predation in freshwater communities. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 27, 183–199 (1990).
6. Lima SL Dill LM Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus Can. J. Zool. 1990 68 619 640 10.1139/z90-092
Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640 (1990).
7. Gabor C Coyle J Aspbury A Effect of predation on male mating behaviour in a unisexual-bisexual mating system Behaviour 2010 147 53 63 10.1163/000579509X12483520922160
Gabor, C., Coyle, J. & Aspbury, A. Effect of predation on male mating behaviour in a unisexual-bisexual mating system. Behaviour 147, 53–63 (2010).
8. Brown C Burgess F Braithwaite VA Heritable and experiential effects on boldness in a tropical poeciliid Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007 62 237 243 10.1007/s00265-007-0458-3
Brown, C., Burgess, F. & Braithwaite, V. A. Heritable and experiential effects on boldness in a tropical poeciliid. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 237–243 (2007).
9. Harris S Ramnarine IW Smith HG Picking personalities apart: estimating the influence of predation, sex and body size on boldness in the guppy Poecilia reticulata Oikos 2010 119 1711 1718 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18028.x
Harris, S. et al. Picking personalities apart: estimating the influence of predation, sex and body size on boldness in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Oikos 119, 1711–1718 (2010).
10. Archard GA Braithwaite VA Increased exposure to predators increases both exploration and activity level in Brachyrhaphis episcopi J. Fish Biol. 2011 78 593 601 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02880.x 21284637
Archard, G. A. & Braithwaite, V. A. Increased exposure to predators increases both exploration and activity level in Brachyrhaphis episcopi. J. Fish Biol. 78, 593–601 (2011).21284637
11. Brown C Jones F Braithwaite V In situ examination of boldness–shyness traits in the tropical poeciliid Brachyraphis episcopi Anim. Behav. 2005 70 1003 1009 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.12.022
Brown, C., Jones, F. & Braithwaite, V. In situ examination of boldness–shyness traits in the tropical poeciliid Brachyraphis episcopi. Anim. Behav. 70, 1003–1009 (2005).
12. Catano LB Rojas MC Malossi RJ Reefscapes of fear: predation risk and reef heterogeneity interact to shape herbivore foraging behaviour J. Anim. Ecol. 2016 85 146 156 10.1111/1365-2656.12440 26332988
Catano, L. B. et al. Reefscapes of fear: predation risk and reef heterogeneity interact to shape herbivore foraging behaviour. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 146–156 (2016).26332988
13. Bolnick DI Amarasekare P Araújo MS Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011 26 183 192 10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009 21367482
Bolnick, D. I. et al. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 183–192 (2011).21367482
14. Wolf M Weissing FJ Animal personalities: Consequences for ecology and evolution Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012 27 452 461 10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.001 22727728
Wolf, M. & Weissing, F. J. Animal personalities: Consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 452–461 (2012).22727728
15. Carere C Gherardi F Animal personalities matter for biological invasions Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013 28 5 6 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.006 23131537
Carere, C. & Gherardi, F. Animal personalities matter for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 5–6 (2013).23131537
16. Ingley SJ Johnson JB Animal personality as a driver of reproductive isolation Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014 29 369 371 10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.008 24837793
Ingley, S. J. & Johnson, J. B. Animal personality as a driver of reproductive isolation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 369–371 (2014).24837793
17. Réale D Reader SM Sol D Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution Biol. Rev. 2007 82 291 318 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.x 17437562
Réale, D. et al. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 82, 291–318 (2007).17437562
18. Bell AM Hankison SJ Laskowski KL The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis Anim. Behav. 2009 77 771 783 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.022 24707058
Bell, A. M., Hankison, S. J. & Laskowski, K. L. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim. Behav. 77, 771–783 (2009).24707058
19. Blake CA Gabor CR Effect of prey personality depends on predator species Behav. Ecol. 2014 25 871 877 10.1093/beheco/aru041
Blake, C. A. & Gabor, C. R. Effect of prey personality depends on predator species. Behav. Ecol. 25, 871–877 (2014).
20. Dammhahn M Almeling L Is risk taking during foraging a personality trait? A field test for cross-context consistency in boldness Anim. Behav. 2012 84 1131 1139 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.014
Dammhahn, M. & Almeling, L. Is risk taking during foraging a personality trait? A field test for cross-context consistency in boldness. Anim. Behav. 84, 1131–1139 (2012).
21. Toscano BJ Gatto J Griffen BD Effect of predation threat on repeatability of individual crab behavior revealed by mark-recapture Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2014 68 519 527 10.1007/s00265-013-1666-7
Toscano, B. J., Gatto, J. & Griffen, B. D. Effect of predation threat on repeatability of individual crab behavior revealed by mark-recapture. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 519–527 (2014).
22. Ehlman SM Halpin R Jones C Intermediate turbidity elicits the greatest antipredator response and generates repeatable behaviour in mosquitofish Anim. Behav. 2019 158 101 108 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.10.006
Ehlman, S. M. et al. Intermediate turbidity elicits the greatest antipredator response and generates repeatable behaviour in mosquitofish. Anim. Behav. 158, 101–108 (2019).
23. Mitchell DJ Beckmann C Biro P Maintenance of behavioral variation under predation risk: effects on personality, plasticity, and predictability Am. Nat. 2023
Mitchell, D. J., Beckmann, C. & Biro, P. Maintenance of behavioral variation under predation risk: effects on personality, plasticity, and predictability. Am. Nat.10.1086/728421 (2023).
24. Urszán TJ Garamszegi LZ Nagy G No personality without experience? A test on Rana dalmatina tadpoles Ecol. Evol. 2015 5 5847 5856 10.1002/ece3.1804 26811759
Urszán, T. J. et al. No personality without experience? A test on Rana dalmatina tadpoles. Ecol. Evol. 5, 5847–5856 (2015).26811759
25. Bell AM Sih A Exposure to predation generates personality in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) Ecol. Lett. 2007 10 828 834 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01081.x 17663716
Bell, A. M. & Sih, A. Exposure to predation generates personality in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ecol. Lett. 10, 828–834 (2007).17663716
26. Dingemanse NJ Wright J Kazem AJN Behavioural syndromes differ predictably between 12 populations of three-spined stickleback J. Anim. Ecol. 2007 76 1128 1138 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01284.x 17922709
Dingemanse, N. J. et al. Behavioural syndromes differ predictably between 12 populations of three-spined stickleback. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 1128–1138 (2007).17922709
27. Muraco JJ Monroe DJ Aspbury AS Do females in a unisexual-bisexual species complex differ in their behavioral syndromes and cortisol production? Biology (Basel) 2021 10 186 33802259
Muraco, J. J. et al. Do females in a unisexual-bisexual species complex differ in their behavioral syndromes and cortisol production?. Biology (Basel) 10, 186 (2021).33802259
28. Muraco JJ Aspbury AS Gabor CR Does male behavioral type correlate with species recognition and stress? Behav. Ecol. 2014 25 200 205 10.1093/beheco/art106
Muraco, J. J., Aspbury, A. S. & Gabor, C. R. Does male behavioral type correlate with species recognition and stress?. Behav. Ecol. 25, 200–205 (2014).
29. Dingemanse NJ Van der Plas F Wright J Individual experience and evolutionary history of predation affect expression of heritable variation in fish personality and morphology Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2009 276 1285 1293 10.1098/rspb.2008.1555
Dingemanse, N. J. et al. Individual experience and evolutionary history of predation affect expression of heritable variation in fish personality and morphology. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 1285–1293 (2009).
30. Sommer-Trembo C Zimmer C Jourdan J Predator experience homogenizes consistent individual differences in predator avoidance J. Ethol. 2016 34 155 165 10.1007/s10164-016-0460-1
Sommer-Trembo, C. et al. Predator experience homogenizes consistent individual differences in predator avoidance. J. Ethol. 34, 155–165 (2016).
31. Castellano S Friard O Environmental effects on the ontogenesis of tadpole personality Anim. Behav. 2021 175 153 161 10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.002
Castellano, S. & Friard, O. Environmental effects on the ontogenesis of tadpole personality. Anim. Behav. 175, 153–161 (2021).
32. Kelley JL Magurran AE Learned predator recognition and antipredator responses in fishes Fish Fish. 2003 4 216 226 10.1046/j.1467-2979.2003.00126.x
Kelley, J. L. & Magurran, A. E. Learned predator recognition and antipredator responses in fishes. Fish Fish. 4, 216–226 (2003).
33. Tulley JJ Huntingford FA Age, experience and the development of adaptive variation in anti-predator responses in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) Ethology 1987 75 285 290 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00660.x
Tulley, J. J. & Huntingford, F. A. Age, experience and the development of adaptive variation in anti-predator responses in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ethology 75, 285–290 (1987).
34. Toscano BJ Allegue H Gownaris NJ Among-individual behavioral responses to predation risk are invariant within two species of freshwater snails Ethology 2023 129 269 279 10.1111/eth.13363
Toscano, B. J. et al. Among-individual behavioral responses to predation risk are invariant within two species of freshwater snails. Ethology 129, 269–279 (2023).
35. Carlson BA Early life experiences have complex and long-lasting effects on behavior Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017 114 11571 11573 10.1073/pnas.1716037114 29078413
Carlson, B. A. Early life experiences have complex and long-lasting effects on behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11571–11573 (2017).29078413
36. Crane AL Meuthen D Thapa H Early-life and parental predation risk shape fear acquisition in adult minnows Anim. Cogn. 2021 24 471 481 10.1007/s10071-020-01439-3 33125574
Crane, A. L. et al. Early-life and parental predation risk shape fear acquisition in adult minnows. Anim. Cogn. 24, 471–481 (2021).33125574
37. Jonsson B Jonsson N Early environment influences later performance in fishes J. Fish Biol. 2014 85 151 188 10.1111/jfb.12432 24961386
Jonsson, B. & Jonsson, N. Early environment influences later performance in fishes. J. Fish Biol. 85, 151–188 (2014).24961386
38. Barbosa M Deacon AE Janeiro MJ Individual variation in reproductive behaviour is linked to temporal heterogeneity in predation risk Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2018 285 20171499 10.1098/rspb.2017.1499
Barbosa, M. et al. Individual variation in reproductive behaviour is linked to temporal heterogeneity in predation risk. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 285, 20171499 (2018).
39. Polverino G Santostefano F Díaz-Gil C Ecological conditions drive pace-of-life syndromes by shaping relationships between life history, physiology and behaviour in two populations of Eastern mosquitofish Sci. Rep. 2018 8 14673 10.1038/s41598-018-33047-0 30279465
Polverino, G. et al. Ecological conditions drive pace-of-life syndromes by shaping relationships between life history, physiology and behaviour in two populations of Eastern mosquitofish. Sci. Rep. 8, 14673 (2018).30279465
40. Stamps JA Biro PA Time-specific convergence and divergence in individual differences in behavior: Theory, protocols and analyzes Ecol. Evol. 2023 38034332
Stamps, J. A. & Biro, P. A. Time-specific convergence and divergence in individual differences in behavior: Theory, protocols and analyzes. Ecol. Evol.10.1002/ece3.10615 (2023).38034332
41. Ehlman S Scherer U Wolf M Developmental feedbacks and the emergence of individuality R. Soc. Open Sci. 2022 9 221189 10.1098/rsos.221189 36465682
Ehlman, S., Scherer, U. & Wolf, M. Developmental feedbacks and the emergence of individuality. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 221189 (2022).36465682
42. Ehlman SM Scherer U Bierbach D Leveraging big data to uncover the eco-evolutionary factors shaping behavioural development Proc. R. Soc. B 2023 290 20222115 10.1098/rspb.2022.2115 36722081
Ehlman, S. M. et al. Leveraging big data to uncover the eco-evolutionary factors shaping behavioural development. Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20222115 (2023).36722081
43. Laskowski KL Doran C Bierbach D Naturally clonal vertebrates are an untapped resource in ecology and evolution research Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019 3 161 169 10.1038/s41559-018-0775-0 30692622
Laskowski, K. L. et al. Naturally clonal vertebrates are an untapped resource in ecology and evolution research. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 161–169 (2019).30692622
44. Biro PA Stamps JA Using repeatability to study physiological and behavioural traits: ignore time-related change at your peril Anim. Behav. 2015 105 223 230 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.008
Biro, P. A. & Stamps, J. A. Using repeatability to study physiological and behavioural traits: ignore time-related change at your peril. Anim. Behav. 105, 223–230 (2015).
45. Dingemanse NJ Dochtermann NA Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: Mixed-effect modelling approaches J. Anim. Ecol. 2013 82 39 54 10.1111/1365-2656.12013 23171297
Dingemanse, N. J. & Dochtermann, N. A. Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: Mixed-effect modelling approaches. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 39–54 (2013).23171297
46. Bierbach D Laskowski KL Wolf M Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite near-identical rearing conditions Nat. Commun. 2017 8 15361 10.1038/ncomms15361 28513582
Bierbach, D., Laskowski, K. L. & Wolf, M. Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite near-identical rearing conditions. Nat. Commun. 8, 15361 (2017).28513582
47. Laskowski KL Bierbach D Jolles JW The emergence and development of behavioral individuality in clonal fish Nat. Commun. 2022 13 6419 10.1038/s41467-022-34113-y 36307437
Laskowski, K. L. et al. The emergence and development of behavioral individuality in clonal fish. Nat. Commun. 13, 6419 (2022).36307437
48. Scherer U Ehlman SM Bierbach D Reproductive individuality of clonal fish raised in near-identical environments and its link to early-life behavioral individuality Nat. Commun. 2023 14 7652 10.1038/s41467-023-43069-6 38001119
Scherer, U. et al. Reproductive individuality of clonal fish raised in near-identical environments and its link to early-life behavioral individuality. Nat. Commun. 14, 7652 (2023).38001119
49. Wooster D Sih A A review of the drift and activity responses of stream prey to predator presence Oikos 1995 73 3 10.2307/3545718
Wooster, D. & Sih, A. A review of the drift and activity responses of stream prey to predator presence. Oikos 73, 3 (1995).
50. Lima SL Bednekoff PA Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: The predation risk allocation hypothesis Am. Nat. 1999 153 249 259 10.1086/303202
Lima, S. L. & Bednekoff, P. A. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: The predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am. Nat. 153, 249–259 (1999).
51. Scherer U Godin J-GJ Schuett W Validation of 2D-animated pictures as an investigative tool in the behavioural sciences: A case study with a West African cichlid fish, Pelvicachromis pulcher Ethology 2017
Scherer, U., Godin, J.-G.J. & Schuett, W. Validation of 2D-animated pictures as an investigative tool in the behavioural sciences: A case study with a West African cichlid fish, Pelvicachromis pulcher. Ethology10.1111/eth.12630 (2017).
52. O’Connor CM Reddon AR Odetunde A Social cichlid fish change behaviour in response to a visual predator stimulus, but not the odour of damaged conspecifics Behav. Process. 2015 121 21 29 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.002
O’Connor, C. M. et al. Social cichlid fish change behaviour in response to a visual predator stimulus, but not the odour of damaged conspecifics. Behav. Process. 121, 21–29 (2015).
53. Milinski M. Constraints placed by predators on feeding behaviour. In: The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1986, pp. 236–252.
54. Cooper WE Blumstein DT Escaping from predators 2015 Cambridge University Press
Cooper, W. E. & Blumstein, D. T. Escaping from predators (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
55. Bierbach D Schulte M Herrmann N Predator avoidance in extremophile fish Life 2013 3 161 180 10.3390/life3010161 25371337
Bierbach, D. et al. Predator avoidance in extremophile fish. Life 3, 161–180 (2013).25371337
56. Hawkins, Magurran, Armstrong. Innate predator recognition in newly-hatched Atlantic salmon. Behaviour 141, 1249–1262 (2004).
57. Culumber ZW Early recognition and response to predator, heterospecific, and conspecific visual cues by multiple species of poeciliid fry Behaviour 2015 152 1463 1479 10.1163/1568539X-00003287
Culumber, Z. W. Early recognition and response to predator, heterospecific, and conspecific visual cues by multiple species of poeciliid fry. Behaviour 152, 1463–1479 (2015).
58. Plath M Liu K Umutoni D Predator-induced changes of male and female mating preferences: innate and learned components Curr. Zool. 2019 65 305 316 10.1093/cz/zoz003 31263489
Plath, M. et al. Predator-induced changes of male and female mating preferences: innate and learned components. Curr. Zool. 65, 305–316 (2019).31263489
59. Karplus I Algom D Visual cues for predator face recognition by reef fishes Z. Tierpsychol. 1981 55 343 364 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1981.tb01277.x
Karplus, I. & Algom, D. Visual cues for predator face recognition by reef fishes. Z. Tierpsychol. 55, 343–364 (1981).
60. Kelley JL Magurran AE Effects of relaxed predation pressure on visual predator recognition in the guppy Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2003 54 225 232 10.1007/s00265-003-0621-4
Kelley, J. L. & Magurran, A. E. Effects of relaxed predation pressure on visual predator recognition in the guppy. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54, 225–232 (2003).
61. Smith JM Brown RLW Competition and body size Theor. Popul. Biol. 1986 30 166 179 10.1016/0040-5809(86)90031-6 3787500
Smith, J. M. & Brown, R. L. W. Competition and body size. Theor. Popul. Biol. 30, 166–179 (1986).3787500
62. Buston PM Cant MA A new perspective on size hierarchies in nature: Patterns, causes, and consequences Oecologia 2006 149 362 372 10.1007/s00442-006-0442-z 16794835
Buston, P. M. & Cant, M. A. A new perspective on size hierarchies in nature: Patterns, causes, and consequences. Oecologia 149, 362–372 (2006).16794835
63. Bisazza A Marconato A Female mate choice, male-male competition and parental care in the river bullhead, Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae) Anim. Behav. 1988 36 1352 1360 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80204-5
Bisazza, A. & Marconato, A. Female mate choice, male-male competition and parental care in the river bullhead, Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae). Anim. Behav. 36, 1352–1360 (1988).
64. Landeau L Terborgh J Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation Anim. Behav. 1986 34 1372 1380 10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80208-1
Landeau, L. & Terborgh, J. Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation. Anim. Behav. 34, 1372–1380 (1986).
65. Crane AL Feyten LEA Preagola AA Uncertainty about predation risk: a conceptual review Biol. Rev. 2023 37839808
Crane, A. L. et al. Uncertainty about predation risk: a conceptual review. Biol. Rev.10.1111/brv.13019 (2023).37839808
66. Sih A Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs Am. Nat. 1992 139 1052 1062 10.1086/285372
Sih, A. Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Am. Nat. 139, 1052–1062 (1992).
67. Sih A Mathot KJ Moirón M Animal personality and state–behaviour feedbacks: A review and guide for empiricists Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015 30 50 60 10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.004 25498413
Sih, A. et al. Animal personality and state–behaviour feedbacks: A review and guide for empiricists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 50–60 (2015).25498413
68. Lamatsch DK Schmid M Schartl M A somatic mosaic of the gynogenetic Amazon molly J. Fish Biol. 2005 60 1417 1422 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb02436.x
Lamatsch, D. K., Schmid, M. & Schartl, M. A somatic mosaic of the gynogenetic Amazon molly. J. Fish Biol. 60, 1417–1422 (2005).
69. Lampert KP Schartl M The origin and evolution of a unisexual hybrid: Poecilia formosa Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2008 363 2901 2909 10.1098/rstb.2008.0040
Lampert, K. P. & Schartl, M. The origin and evolution of a unisexual hybrid: Poecilia formosa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363, 2901–2909 (2008).
70. Schlupp I The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005 36 399 417 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152629
Schlupp, I. The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 399–417 (2005).
71. Stöck M Lampert KP Möller D Monophyletic origin of multiple clonal lineages in an asexual fish (Poecilia formosa) Mol. Ecol. 2010 19 5204 5215 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04869.x 20964758
Stöck, M. et al. Monophyletic origin of multiple clonal lineages in an asexual fish (Poecilia formosa). Mol. Ecol. 19, 5204–5215 (2010).20964758
72. Warren WC García-Pérez R Xu S Clonal polymorphism and high heterozygosity in the celibate genome of the Amazon molly Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018 2 669 679 10.1038/s41559-018-0473-y 29434351
Warren, W. C. et al. Clonal polymorphism and high heterozygosity in the celibate genome of the Amazon molly. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 669–679 (2018).29434351
73. Hubbs CL Hubbs LC Apparent parthenogenesis in nature, in a form of fish of hybrid origin Science 1979 1932 76 628 630
Hubbs, C. L. & Hubbs, L. C. Apparent parthenogenesis in nature, in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science 1932(76), 628–630 (1979).
74. Schultz RJ Schröder JH Origin and synthesis of a unisexual fish Genetics and Mutagenesis of Fish 1973 Berlin, Heidelberg Springer 207 211
Schultz, R. J. Origin and synthesis of a unisexual fish. In Genetics and Mutagenesis of Fish (ed. Schröder, J. H.) 207–211 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1973).
75. Alberici da Barbiano L Gompert Z Aspbury AS Population genomics reveals a possible history of backcrossing and recombination in the gynogenetic fish Poecilia formosa Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2013 110 13797 13802 10.1073/pnas.1303730110 23918384
Alberici da Barbiano, L. et al. Population genomics reveals a possible history of backcrossing and recombination in the gynogenetic fish Poecilia formosa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 13797–13802 (2013).23918384
76. Kallman KD Gynogenesis in the teleost, Mollienesia formosa (Girard), with a discussion of the detection of parthenogenesis in vertebrates by tissue transplantation J. Genet. 1962 58 1 7 24 10.1007/BF02986114
Kallman, K. D. Gynogenesis in the teleost, Mollienesia formosa (Girard), with a discussion of the detection of parthenogenesis in vertebrates by tissue transplantation. J. Genet. 58(1), 7–24 (1962).
77. Rasch EM Darnell RM Kallman KD Cytophotometric evidence for triploidy in hybrids of the gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa J. Exp. Zool. 1965 160 155 169 10.1002/jez.1401600203 5894252
Rasch, E. M. et al. Cytophotometric evidence for triploidy in hybrids of the gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa. J. Exp. Zool. 160, 155–169 (1965).5894252
78. Turner BJ Brett B-LH Rasch EM Evolutionary genetics of a gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa, the Amazon molly Evolution (NY) 1980 34 246
Turner, B. J. et al. Evolutionary genetics of a gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa, the Amazon molly. Evolution (NY) 34, 246 (1980).
79. Lu Y Bierbach D Ormanns J Fixation of allelic gene expression landscapes and expression bias pattern shape the transcriptome of the clonal Amazon molly Genome Res. 2021 31 372 379 10.1101/gr.268870.120 33547183
Lu, Y. et al. Fixation of allelic gene expression landscapes and expression bias pattern shape the transcriptome of the clonal Amazon molly. Genome Res. 31, 372–379 (2021).33547183
80. Lukas JAY Jourdan J Kalinkat G On the occurrence of three non-native cichlid species including the first record of a feral population of Pelmatolapia (Tilapia) mariae (Boulenger, 1899) in Europe R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017 4 170160 10.1098/rsos.170160 28680671
Lukas, J. A. Y. et al. On the occurrence of three non-native cichlid species including the first record of a feral population of Pelmatolapia (Tilapia) mariae (Boulenger, 1899) in Europe. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170160 (2017).28680671
81. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
82. Bates D Mächler M Bolker B Fitting linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R J. Stat. Softw. 2015 67 1 48 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bates, D., Mächler, M. & Bolker, B. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
83. Hertel AG Niemelä PT Dingemanse NJ A guide for studying among-individual behavioral variation from movement data in the wild Mov. Ecol. 2020 8 30 10.1186/s40462-020-00216-8 32612837
Hertel, A. G. et al. A guide for studying among-individual behavioral variation from movement data in the wild. Mov. Ecol. 8, 30 (2020).32612837
