Within-Species Variation in Cognition in Cichlid Fishes: Influences of Social Status
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Within-species Variation in Cognition in Cichlid Fishes: Influences of Social Status and Personality Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Elizabeth Anne Hoskins Graduate Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology The Ohio State University 2018 Dissertation Committee Ian M. Hamilton, Advisor J. Andrew Roberts Suzanne M. Gray Dawn M. Kitchen 1 Copyrighted by Elizabeth Anne Hoskins 2018 2 Abstract Cognition, the processes involved in acquiring, storing, and the use of information from the environment, plays a critical role in the presentation of behavior. Cognition may influence the perception of risk, the success in which an individual obtains mating opportunities, or how an individual navigates through a complex habitat. While there are benefits to having some cognitive abilities, there is also variation within a species for many of these abilities. Differences in social status and behavioral type between individuals may drive the variation we observe in cognitive abilities. For my dissertation, I examine this main question: How does individual variation in status and personality influence cognition? Specifically, I investigate how 1) dominance hierarchies influence the ability to recognize individuals, 2) dominance hierarchies influence use of socially acquired information, and 3) personality influences the rate of associative learning. I use an experimental approach using two Lake Tanganyikan fish species, Neolamprologus pulcher and Julidochromis ornatus. Both are species that live in long term groups with dominance hierarchies. In Chapter 2, I examine if mid-ranking individuals can recognize multiple individuals, and if they prioritize who they can individually identify based on potential fitness benefits. Using live and animated stimuli of N. pulcher, I found that mid- ranking individuals can discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar individuals. Even more, they can distinguish high-ranking (dominant) familiar and unfamiliar fish as well ii as lower-ranking individuals. These results suggest that individuals benefit from recognizing multiple members of their group. In Chapter 3, I hypothesized that observers would use social information from individuals that would increase their fitness. Specifically, I predicted that observers would use information from demonstrators more dominant (which in N. pulcher are older and larger) than themselves. I tested this is N. pulcher and I found that observers used social information from females that were larger than themselves, suggesting that social status does influence the use of social information. This could be either because they pay more attention to these individuals or because these individuals have been successful at foraging and avoiding predators In Chapter 4, I tested the hypothesis that an interaction between personality and type of association task influences an individual’s learning rate. Specifically, I predicted that highly aggressive and exploratory individuals would learn novel associations quickly and reversal associations more slowly, compared to less aggressive and exploratory individuals. I tested this hypothesis with two food-location association tasks in J. ornatus. I did not find that personality was associated with learning rate, thus failing to support my hypothesis. However, I did find that social environment (whether individuals had a mate) influenced learning task completion and environmental temperature influences learning rate. In an environment where food is limited, this suggests that motivation for a food reward influences learning. As a whole, this work suggests that the variation in an individual’s social environment does influence cognitive abilities, but I did not find evidence that variation in an individual’s personality influences the cognitive abilities that I explored. iii Acknowledgments There are many people that have contributed to this dissertation and my training as a scientist. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Ian Hamilton. He is truly an outstanding mentor and I am grateful his patience, guidance, and support. I would also like to thank Libby Marschall, for she, along with Ian, invested a great amount of time teaching me how science works and how to be a scientist. I would like to thank my committee, Andy Roberts, Suzanne Gray, and Dawn Kitchen for their mentorship as well as their thoughtful contributions to this project. I owe thanks to Stu Ludsin and the other members of the AEL for allowing me to take over one of their fish rooms for a summer, as well as for their guidance on the Julies. I am grateful to the Animal Behavioral and Ecological Complex Systems (ABECS) Lab, both past and present for their advice and support. I also want to thank my partner, Jeff Klenke, for without him I would have never been able to do this. Partners should receive honorary degrees. I would also like to thank my SACNAS family as well as ABD group for their support and their perspective on school and life. Lastly, I want to acknowledge that completing this dissertation took a lot of hard work. It took the hard work of my Grandpa, who had to leave school before learning how to read so he could support his family. It took the hard work of my Grandma, who iv worked three jobs to raise her children so that they could have a better life. It took hard work from my family in the Philippines, who did the hard work of manually planting rice so that my Mom could have a future. It took hard work from my Dad, who was the first person in our family to go to college and set the expectation that I would go to college. It took hard work from my Mom, who left home at an early age to support her family. She is and has always been the biggest advocate for my education. My entire family worked hard so that I could have this opportunity, and I am grateful. v Vita May 2006 .......................................................Catholic Central High School, Springfield, OH 2006 to 2011 .................................................B.S., Zoology; B.S., Psychology, The Ohio State University 2012 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Evolution, Ecology and Organizmal Biology vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Using live animals and animations to test individual recognition in a highly social cichlid fish ................................................................................................................ 6 Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 Methods......................................................................................................................... 12 Results ........................................................................................................................... 19 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3: Size and sex influence the use of social information in a social cichlid fish .. 39 Abstract: ........................................................................................................................ 39 Introduction: .................................................................................................................. 40 Methods: ....................................................................................................................... 45 Results: .......................................................................................................................... 52 Discussion: .................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 4: Temperature and social environment, not personality, influences learning rate in the cichlid fish Julidochromis ornatus .......................................................................... 63 Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 63 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 64 Methods......................................................................................................................... 68 Results ..........................................................................................................................