Research ArticleBEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY

Mismatched partners that achieve postpairing behavioral similarity improve their reproductive success

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  04 Mar 2016:
Vol. 2, no. 3, e1501013
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501013
  • Fig. 1 Change in within-pair behavioral similarity between contexts.

    The mean behavioral similarity index (± bootstrapped 95% CI) for matched pairs (open circles; n = 15) and mismatched pairs (solid circles; n = 13) as a function of the context: isolated individuals and pairing context. A significant interaction between the nature of the pair (matched or mismatched) and the context was observed (mixed-effects linear model: χ21 = 6.88, P = 0.0087). The similarity index significantly decreased for mismatched pairs (mixed-effects generalized linear model: χ21 = 9.07, P = 0.0026), whereas there was no significant difference between contexts for matched pairs (χ21 = 0.59, P = 0.443). Between the contexts, only the significant post hoc comparisons were included in the figure (***P < 0.001). Mismatched pairs were significantly less similar than matched pairs in the isolated context (F1, 27 = 21.39, P < 0.0001), whereas there was no difference in the similarity index once individuals were paired (F1,23 = 0.0028, P = 0.96). Considering the continuous difference between partners instead of discrete categories (proactive or reactive) leads to consistent results: a larger initial difference in the behavioral score between partners significantly relates to a larger change in similarity (r = 0.60, P = 0.0025). n.s., not significant.

  • Fig. 2 Reproductive benefits of convergence.

    Reproductive success was assessed as the mean number of fry (± bootstrapped 95% CI) for matched pairs (open circles) and mismatched pairs (solid circles). To allow for comparison with matched pairs, we dichotomized mismatched pairs into converging pairs (the 50% most similar in the pairing context) and nonconverging pairs (the 50% least similar in the pairing context). Nonconverging mismatched pairs had significantly fewer fry than converging mismatched pairs (permutation test: P = 0.04) and significantly fewer fry than matched pairs (P = 0.04). Only the significant comparisons were included in the figure (*P < 0.05 after correcting for multiple comparisons).

  • Fig. 3 Proactive versus reactive flexibility in mismatched pairs.

    The mean frequency of agonistic behaviors (± bootstrapped 95% CI) toward the intruder for reactive partners (triangles) and proactive partners (diamonds) in mismatched pairs as a function of the context: isolated context and pairing context. A significant interaction between behavioral type (reactive or proactive) and context was observed (mixed-effects linear model: χ21 = 9.52, P = 0.0020). For reactive fish, aggressiveness significantly increased between contexts (χ21 = 11.93, P = 0.0006), whereas it was consistent for proactive fish (χ21 = 0.04, P = 0.85). For each given behavioral type, only the post hoc tests between the contexts were included in the figure (n.s.: P > 0.10; ***P < 0.001). Reactive and proactive fish significantly differed in the isolated context only (χ21 = 39.59, P < 10−5), whereas there was no difference once they were paired (χ21 = 0.29, P = 0.60).

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/e1501013/DC1

    Fig. S1. Frequency of intrapair conflicts.

    Fig. S2. Spawning latency (in days) in matched and mismatched pairs.

    Fig. S3. Aggressive responses toward the intruder.

    Fig. S4. Individual behavioral reaction norm across pairing for reactive individuals.

    Fig. S5. Behavioral score.

    Fig. S6. Formation of 28 pairs of cichlids based on their behavioral type along the proactive-reactive continuum.

    Table S1. Repeatability of behavioral traits.

    Table S2. Correlations between the behavioral traits used to define the proactive-reactive behavioral types.

    Table S3. Loading of the four behavioral traits on to the three principal components.

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Fig. S1. Frequency of intrapair conflicts.
    • Fig. S2. Spawning latency (in days) in matched and mismatched pairs.
    • Fig. S3. Aggressive responses toward the intruder.
    • Fig. S4. Individual behavioral reaction norm across pairing for reactive individuals.
    • Fig. S5. Behavioral score.
    • Fig. S6. Formation of 28 pairs of cichlids based on their behavioral type along the proactive-reactive continuum.
      Table S1. Repeatability of behavioral traits.
    • Table S2. Correlations between the behavioral traits used to define the proactivereactive behavioral types.
    • Table S3. Loading of the four behavioral traits on to the three principal components.

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Navigate This Article