441
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Looks or personality: what drives damselfly male mating success in the wild?

ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 81-93 | Received 18 May 2023, Accepted 05 Dec 2023, Published online: 04 Jan 2024

Abstract

Understanding the connection between personality and fitness is an important topic in both behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Most of our current knowledge stems from lab-studies despite that studies in natural populations for most parts generate more ecologically relevant information on behavioural variation and mating success. Here, we quantified Calopteryx splendens male mating success across two behavioural axes: courtship and boldness-aggression, testing personality and plasticity of behavioural traits in a natural population situated in the central-core of the species distribution. We also measured wing patch area and body size as these traits are important in damselfly sexual selection. The only behavioural trait that positively affected mating success was consistency in courtship effort. Among morphological traits, smaller wing patch size was associated with greater male mating success, while thorax size was a better predictor of male mating success than either personality or plasticity in boldness and activity. Our results demonstrate the importance of behavioural consistency over plasticity in a wild insect population and support prior studies showing the importance of body size for mating success.

Introduction

Animals have been shown to differ consistently in their individual behaviour (Sih et al. Citation2004a, Citation2004b; Bell Citation2007). This is known as animal personality and can substantially affect ecological and evolutionary processes (Réale et al. Citation2007; Wolf & Weissing Citation2012). Further, personality traits are often correlated with other behavioural traits leading to behavioural syndromes (BS, Sih et al. Citation2004b). For example, bold individuals are usually more active (boldness/activity BS, Golab et al. Citation2022), aggressive (boldness/aggression BS, Bell & Sih Citation2007), prone to take risk (boldness/risk-taking BS, van Oers et al. Citation2004) and/or more likely to explore new environments (boldness/exploration BS, Mazué et al. Citation2015). Individual behavioural variation, however, is not only determined by personality but is also influenced by individual plasticity, which governs the behavioural response of an animal to changing environmental and/or social conditions (Mathot & Dingemanse Citation2014).

Individual differences in behavioural traits play important roles in population dynamics (Dall et al. Citation2012), dispersal and spatial distribution (Cote et al. Citation2010; Baguette et al. Citation2013), tendency to be invasive (Fogarty et al. Citation2011; Chapple et al. Citation2012) and inter-specific interactions (Pettorelli et al. Citation2015; Lichtenstein et al. Citation2018). Personality traits are also suggested to affect fitness (Dingemanse & Reale Citation2005; Smith & Blumstein Citation2007). Mating success is a good predictor of fitness (Andersson Citation1994) and in many cases strictly depends on animal behaviour (Bangham et al. Citation2002; Reaney & Backwell Citation2007; Rayner et al. Citation2020 but see Thompson et al. Citation2011). Yet, it is unclear to what extent consistent between-individual behavioural variation shape mating success in different environmental conditions (Schuett et al. Citation2010).

In general, consistent behaviour is favoured in predictable environments (Lytle et al. Citation2008). It is also possible that consistent behaviours are present if individuals are unresponsive to environmental stimuli (Dingemanse et al. Citation2010; Mathot & Dingemanse Citation2014) or if animals consistently differ from each other in their adjustment to ambient conditions (Dingemanse et al. Citation2010). However, most studies focus on one of the two components of behavioural variation. One of the first studies comparing the strength of behavioural plasticity and personality in an invertebrate species investigated startle response in hermit crab (Pagurus bernhardus). The authors found that personality was more important than plasticity (Briffa et al. Citation2008), which confirms that these two components together determine variation in behaviour and should be studied together (Briffa et al. Citation2008; Dingemanse et al. Citation2010).

Compared to the large number of laboratory experiments on captive (or captive-bred) animals, relatively few studies have focused on personality in the wild. This despite the many limitations with studying animal behaviour under laboratory conditions (e.g. captivity stress, selective trapping, scale effects, homogeneity of the laboratory environment, artificial and relaxed selection, reduced pool of potential mates, etc.; Archard & Braithwaite Citation2010). Assessments of personality under artificial conditions might generate results and conclusions that can be ecologically or evolutionary misleading compared to what happens in the wild (Niemelä & Dingemanse Citation2014). While some studies do confirm similar personality estimates both in the lab and natural populations (e.g. studies on African striped mice Rhabdomys pumilio, Yuen et al. Citation2016; and blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus,; Herborn et al. Citation2010), other studies show differences between personality assessment in laboratory and field conditions (Fisher et al. Citation2015; Osborn & Briffa Citation2017). Further, some authors assume that laboratory vs field conditions can be considered as different contexts and as such generate different behavioural responses driven by alternative experimental conditions (Yuen et al. Citation2017; Mouchet et al. Citation2021).

The aim of our study was to determine if variation in male mating success depends on personality, plasticity and/or morphology in a wild insect population. We chose the damselfly Calopteryx splendens as a model organism for two main reasons. First, to fill a current knowledge gap in animal personality research, where insects – the most numerous taxonomic group on Earth – receive relatively limited attention (Mather & Logue Citation2013; Kralj-Fišer & Schuett Citation2014; Amat et al. Citation2018). Second, odonates have already been identified as good models for testing ecological and evolutionary hypotheses (Córdoba-Aguilar Citation2008) and because the behavioural repertoire of C. splendens is very suitable for behavioural experiments in the wild (Golab et al. Citation2021). We formulated four main hypotheses: (i) males devoting more time to courtship display have higher mating success than males chasing females, as previously demonstrated in wolf spiders (Shamble et al. Citation2009) and dung beetles (Kotiaho Citation2002), (ii) males with more bold-aggressive personality have higher mating success than shy and less aggressive males, as previous research on water striders suggest (Sih et al. Citation2014), (iii) the most successful males show a balance between personality and plasticity in the studied traits, because these two components of behavioural diversity often complement each other – especially in moderately predictable environments (Dingemanse et al. Citation2010), (iv) wing spot area and thorax length will positively affect mating success, because it has been previously suggested that male wing coloration affects female reproductive decisions in C. splendens (Fitzstephens & Getty Citation2000), and body size is important for sexual selection in insects (Thornhill & Alcock Citation1983). We tested these hypotheses by measuring courtship effort, boldness and aggression all the while controlling for important sexually selected morphological traits (wing patch and body size) (Córdoba-Aguilar Citation2008).

Methods

Study organism

Calopteryx splendens () is a damselfly commonly found along slow flowing rivers in Europe (Dijkstra et al. Citation2020). Sexually mature males and females inhabit the shores of running waters where mating and oviposition take place (Rüppell et al. Citation2005). Males are territorial and polygynous and have an average life span, as mature, of approx. 1 week (Svensson et al. Citation2006). During the peak of the flying season (July in South Poland) many males adopt a non-territorial tactic attempting to take over already occupied territories (Rüppell et al. Citation2005; Golab et al. Citation2013). Males fight to gain access to territories (floating vegetation rafts) suitable for oviposition. A territory owner (resident) defends his patch for a few consecutive days, primarily by chasing away intruders; escalated male contests include biting (Rüppell et al. Citation2005). While holding a territory, the resident male patrols along the territory borders in order to detect and chase away intruders and to attract females with an elaborated courtship display (Corbet Citation2004). Copulation takes place after male courtship and female acceptance (Corbet Citation2004). After mating, the territorial male guards the female, while she oviposits eggs on his territory (Marden & Waage Citation1990; Córdoba-Aguilar & Cordero-Rivera Citation2005; Golab & Sniegula Citation2012). Vision is the only sense used during mate choice in odonates (Corbet Citation2004). Wing pigmentation communicates the male condition (reviewed by Córdoba-Aguilar & Cordero-Rivera Citation2005), and wings play an important role in courtships display (Rüppell et al. Citation2005). Previous studies have shown that C. splendens males can be safely observed from 2 m distance without influencing its behaviour (e.g. Golab et al. Citation2013, Citation2017). Also, neither the time of day (between 11.00 h and 15.00 h) nor habitat disturbance affects the territorial behaviours of territorial males in the studied population (Golab et al. Citation2013).

Figure 1. Calopteryx splendens - mature male.

Figure 1. Calopteryx splendens - mature male.

Field study

The studies were conducted between 1 June and 31 August 2020 and 2021 along a 50 m section of the river Biala Nida, South Poland (50.712860 N, 20.194094 E), located in the centre of the species distribution (; Dijkstra et al. Citation2020). The river section chosen for the study is regulated and located in a homogeneous landscape; therefore, its hydrological conditions are stable. Riparian vegetation was cut regularly to standardize vegetation height and to avoid shading of the water. Aquatic vegetation used by the damselfly as territories and oviposition substrates was manipulated (cut with scissors) so that floating vegetation rafts (territories) were equal in size, shape and plant composition (). An earlier study showed that the size of a vegetation patch correlates with the territorial strategy of resident males (Golab et al. Citation2013). At the studied river section, a conspecific damselfly species, C. virgo, was also present, but only at low densities, 5–15 individuals per 50 m. To avoid interspecific aggression during the experiments, all C. virgo individuals were collected and relocated at least 4 km upstream each morning (usually less than 10 individuals). Field experiments were conducted under comparable weather conditions (sunny days, air temperature 23–28°C; wind 0–4 m/s) and time of day (10.00 h−11.00 h individual marking, 11.00 h−15:00 h experiments and 16.00 h−17.00 h collecting males for morphological measurements, details below). Birds, mostly white wagtails, have been seen hunting odonates along the study river. However, no bird-predation was observed during the conducted research. Presumably, the presence of 2–3 researchers along the river scared the birds away. At the beginning of every field work day, all males present at the studied section of the river were caught with an insect net and individually marked with a unique combination of three digits written on both hindwings (white marker) in order to recognize individuals without recapturing them. Each male had the same wing surface marked to ensure that the potential impact of the marking was consistent for every individual (Anderson et al. Citation2011). After marking, individuals were released at their respective capture site. Every morning, prior to the start of the data collection, a 10 min observation of studied territories was performed in order to assign resident males to their respective territories. Next, at least six randomly chosen mature males (to serve as intruders in the following experiments) and females were caught and glued to a fishing-line (; Tynkkynen et al. Citation2008; Golab et al. Citation2021), placed in a cooler to prevent energy expenditure and kept until experiments began. After each day of data collection, the studied residents were caught and preserved in 70% ethanol. Morphological features (abdomen and thorax length) of the males were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm using a digital calliper. Wings were photographed, and patch size was subsequently measured with the software ImageJ.

Figure 2. Study site and experimental methods in Biala Nida river, Poland. Floating vegetation (potamogeton natans) rafts (territories) (a), territory manipulation by sinking the floating vegetation with ballast (b), Calopteryx splendens female attached to a fishing line (c-d).

Figure 2. Study site and experimental methods in Biala Nida river, Poland. Floating vegetation (potamogeton natans) rafts (territories) (a), territory manipulation by sinking the floating vegetation with ballast (b), Calopteryx splendens female attached to a fishing line (c-d).

Courtship effort experiment

One of the collected females was attached to a fishing-line anchored to a rod () and presented to a focal resident male for 2 min. Female presentation was video-recorded in order to quantify the following male traits: (1) courtship – time [s] the courtship display was performed by the resident male; (2) female chasing – the time [s] the resident male devoted for chasing female without courtship display (hereafter, female chasing) – a behaviour related to sexual coercion. In order to avoid female exhaustion and to reduce risk of females displaying rejection signals, females presented to the resident males were replaced every 10 min. The video-recordings were analysed in slow motion in order to quantify the traits listed above. This method has successfully been used in previous behavioural studies on this damselfly species (Rüppell & Hilfert-Rüppell Citation2013). The procedure was carried out, to each of the focal residents, both in the morning (10.00–12.00 h, before territory manipulation) and in the afternoon (13.00–15.00 h, after territory manipulation). In the afternoon trial, the quality of the territory (vegetation raft) was manipulated by reducing its size by sinking ca. 25% of the floating vegetation with ballast (two steel pipes connected with a fishing net) (Golab et al. Citation2013, Citation2021; )

Boldness experiment

A bird decoy, with real feathers, dimensions similar to a wagtail and in a spread-wing posture, was moved from a distance of 4 m with a speed ca. 2 m/s (which is 2 times faster than Calopteryx spp. flight speed; Rüppell & Hilfert-Rüppell Citation2020) towards a perching resident male until he flew away. Time until the resident returned to his territory was recorded. The observation was terminated after 200 s and individual that had not returned was assigned a maximum value of 200 s. As above, the trial was repeated in the morning and afternoon with the same habitat manipulation, as described above, carried out. Boldness was measured as latency to return to the territory – the bolder an individual was, the faster he returned. To make the interpretation of the result presentation more intuitive (i.e. higher values = higher boldness), boldness values were inverted. A similar method for quantifying damselfly boldness was successfully used in previous studies (Brodin Citation2009; Golab et al. Citation2021).

Aggression experiment

One of the collected intruder-males was attached to a fishing-line and presented to a focal resident male for 2 min (the intruder was moved towards the resident while flying). Again, each assay was recorded and analysed analogously to the courtship trials. The following traits were quantified: (1) male chasing – time [s] a resident male spent chasing an intruder without a fighting attempt, which denotes a less aggressive response to an intruder (2) escalated fight – time [s] a resident male spent on heavy/escalated fighting, which represents the most aggressive behaviour. This treatment was repeated to each of the resident males, similarly to the courtship experiment. As with stimuli females, intruder males were replaced every 10 min.

Mating efficiency

Observations were made from the centre of the river channel, over a distance of 50 m along the river. Each set lasted 15–25 min during which territorial males and their territories were observed. If experiments were being conducted on the particular territory, observation of that, and the two adjacent, territories was skipped. Since egg-laying in C. splendens usually takes less than an hour (Rüppell et al. Citation2005), it was possible to observe most of the females laying eggs in a given territory. The number of females that laid eggs on a given male territory were counted and used as a proxy of male mating success. We only included females that were previously seen copulating with the focal residents.

Analyses

The R software (R Development Core Team Citation2022) was used for data analyses. Spearman’s correlations between mean boldness and mean aggression traits (chasing male, heavy fights) were calculated to test for the existence of bold-aggressive syndrome.

A behavioural reaction norm approach was used to assess plasticity and personality of the studied traits. The plasticity of the studied traits was computed as the slope of the behavioural traits measured in the two experimental trials (absolute value of the difference between second and first measurement). Personality (consistency of traits) was computed as an average trait value from the two experimental trials (Gosling Citation2001; Pigliucci Citation2001; Schuett et al. Citation2010). It was previously shown that the traits related to activity, boldness and sexual behaviours are repeatable in C. splendens in the studied population (Golab et al. Citation2021). In the present study, we again tested for consistency of behavioural traits by comparing the differences between the two territory manipulations (before and after manipulation). We used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs; glmmTMB function) with treatment (i.e. before and after manipulations) as fixed effect and the ID of male as a random effect to control for the repeated measures.

A generalized linear model (GLM; glmmTMB function) was constructed to test how mating success (negative binomial distribution) in resident males was affected by behaviours with the following explanatory variables: year, plasticity (slope values) of: aggression (chasing male, heavy fights), boldness and courtship (courtship effort, chasing female) and consistency (mean values) of the above traits. Wing patch size and thorax length were used as covariates. Courtship-related traits were analysed in a separate model, since we wanted to analyse sexual and non-sexual behaviours separately (Golab et al. Citation2022). Statistical significance was established at p < 0.05.

Results

In this study, we assayed in total 87 males: 31 males in 2020 and 56 in 2021 ().

Table I. Number of Calopteryx splendens males used in experiments on Biala Nida river, Poland.

None of the tested behavioural traits were significantly different between the two territory manipulations (Courtship effort: Estimate = −0.44, Z = −1.64, P = 0.101; Chasing female: Estimate = −0.12, Z = −0.4, P = 0.692; Boldness: Estimate = 0.39, Z = 0.94, P = 0.347; Chasing male: Estimate = <-0.01, Z = <-0.01, P = 0.997; Heavy fights: Estimate = 1.02, Z = 0.24, P = 0.811), showing that males in the studied population behaved consistently over the two trials and the average trait value can be used as a proxy for trait consistency. Also, there were no differences in male success between the 2 years in all models (courtship consistency: P = 0.142, courtship plasticity: P = 0.631, boldness-aggression consistency: P = 0.061, boldness-aggression plasticity: P = 0.095); hence, year was removed from the models.

Average courtship effort (consistency, proxy for personality) was positively correlated to male mating success, while wing patch size was not related to mating success (, ). In contrast, neither chasing females nor thorax length affected male mating success ().

Figure 3. Correlation between plasticity and personality of courtship related traits and mating success (a–d). Correlation between body dimensions (wing patch size and thorax width) and male mating success in Calopteryx splendens males (e–f). Non-significant relationships are shown with dashed lines.

Figure 3. Correlation between plasticity and personality of courtship related traits and mating success (a–d). Correlation between body dimensions (wing patch size and thorax width) and male mating success in Calopteryx splendens males (e–f). Non-significant relationships are shown with dashed lines.

Table II. Effects of personality and plasticity of courtship-related behaviours and body size on male mating success in Calopteryx splendens.

Plasticity of courtship effort and of chasing females did not affect male mating success (). Wing patch size was negatively correlated to male mating success (, ).

Average boldness, chasing male and heavy fights (consistency measures) did not influence male mating success (, ). However, also here wing patch size affected mating success negatively, whereas thorax length had a positive effect on male mating success (, ).

Figure 4. Polynomial relation between: personality in boldness and aggression related traits and mating success of Calopteryx splendens males (a, b, e) and between plasticity of boldness and aggression related traits and mating success (c, d, f); standard error (shaded area).

Figure 4. Polynomial relation between: personality in boldness and aggression related traits and mating success of Calopteryx splendens males (a, b, e) and between plasticity of boldness and aggression related traits and mating success (c, d, f); standard error (shaded area).

Table III. Effects of personality and plasticity in boldness-aggression related traits and body size on male mating success in Calopteryx splendens.

Plasticity of boldness and aggression-related traits did not affect male mating success (, ). Nevertheless, here, in contrast to the other models, wing patch size did not correlate with male mating success ().

Finally, there was a significant negative correlation between average boldness and average chasing male (r = −0.34, p = 0.038; ). In contrast, average boldness was not correlated with average heavy fights (r = −0.08, p = 0.641; ).

Figure 5. Correlations between boldness and aggression related traits: a – chasing male, and b – heavy fights. Non-significant relationship is shown with dashed line.

Figure 5. Correlations between boldness and aggression related traits: a – chasing male, and b – heavy fights. Non-significant relationship is shown with dashed line.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the impact of personality (consistency), plasticity and morphology on male mating success in a wild insect population. Our results supported the hypothesis that males devoting more time to courtship would get higher mating success. We showed, however, that the bold-aggressive syndrome does not seem to affect mating success. In addition, we did not find support for our third hypothesis that intermediate personality and plasticity lead to the highest mating success. Finally, we can conclude that our results were in line with the long-standing assumption that sexually selected morphological traits affect male mating success (Andersson Citation1994), although the effect is not always positive.

In general, the connections between body metrics and male mating success were not clear in our study. The negative effect of patch size on male mating success seen here can have several explanations. Usually, sexual selection favours larger wing pigmentation in calopterygids (Siva-Jothy Citation1999; Córdoba-Aguilar Citation2002). However, interspecific interactions might interfere with sexual selection. Co-occurrence of C. virgo at the studied river might have been selected for smaller patch size in C. splendens through reduced interspecific aggression. C. splendens with larger wing patches are more often attacked and deprived of territory by C. virgo males than males with smaller wing patches (Tynkkynen et al. Citation2004; Kuitunen et al. Citation2011). Yet, the experiment was conducted in a river section where C. virgo was relatively rare. The congeneric species was more numerous in the lower parts of the river (ca. 4 km downstream). Another possible explanation to the negative effects of patch size on mating success found here could be that the individuals in our study area were migrants from the lower sections of the river and hence had a history of high interspecific interaction with C. virgo, which is very plausible since calopterygid damselflies tend to migrate upstream (Stettmer Citation1996; Schutte et al. Citation1997). Also, an increased predation-risk for large-spotted males could be another force selecting for smaller wing patch and acting antagonistically to sexual selection. Such decoupled sexual and natural selections have been suggested for C. splendens (Kuchta & Svensson Citation2014; Outomuro & Johansson Citation2015) and other species such as swordtails (Xiphophorus hellerii; Rosenthal et al. Citation2001) or several agamid lizard species (Stuart–Fox & Ord Citation2004). It is also important to note that the wing marking method itself can impact the mating efficiency of odonates, as has been demonstrated in the species Hetaerina americana, where increasing the red pigment area affected mating success (Grether Citation1996). In our study, we had to compromise between reducing time in captivity (minimizing stress) and reducing identification time in the field to avoid disrupting the natural behaviour of the males during experiments. Wing marking allowed us to balance these two goals. As we ensured that the wing surface covered by the code was comparable across all studied males, we assume that the experimental procedure’s impact was uniform for all damselflies. This approach allowed us to reveal real behavioural differences among them. However, caution should be exercised in directly relating the absolute number of matings obtained by the studied males to un-manipulated males under natural conditions. Altogether, male secondary sexual character (wing patch size) maintenance was probably disrupted by different selection pressures (Andersson Citation1994) in our study, suggesting that the trait plays a minor role for male mating success in this particular population, especially when compared to male courtship effort. A similar pattern was observed in a wolf spider (Schizocosa uetzi) where body ornamentation was condition dependent and only male courtship intensity increased mating success (Shamble et al. Citation2009).

Courtship effort consistency affected male mating success positively, whereas plasticity of courtship effort only tended to affect male mating success. As such, courtship effort consistency seems to be more important than plasticity for male mating success in our study population. The advantage of consistency over plasticity might be explained by predictability of environmental conditions (both physical and social; Dall et al. Citation2012) and a balance between sexual and natural selection (Gadgil Citation1972; Burk Citation1982; Andersson Citation1994). The studied population was located in the central area of the C. splendens distribution, and we assume that the environmental variation in this area is highly predictable and suitable for the species (Lytle et al. Citation2008; Dijkstra et al. Citation2020; Riotte-Lambert & Matthiopoulos Citation2020), which should favour personality over plasticity (Dingemanse et al. Citation2010). Current results correspond with previous findings showing the highest courtship values in C. splendens populations central in the species range, where local factors favour selection on courtship rather than boldness (Golab et al. Citation2022). Calopterygid females mate discriminately and refuse forced copulations with males that do not adopt pre-copulatory courtship (Waage Citation1987; Cordero Citation1999; Arnqvist & Nilsson Citation2000). Therefore, at stable environmental conditions, partners devoting much time to courtship should experience higher mating success. Forced copulations may be accepted only in unfavourable environments, like in very high population densities (Cordero Rivera & Andrés Citation2002) or when habitats are disrupted (Golab & Sniegula Citation2012), which was not the case in our study system. Also, since personality can be heritable (Réale et al. Citation2007; Korsten et al. Citation2013) females may choose partners with a given behavioural profile which would be adaptive for their offspring (Dingemanse et al. Citation2010). Similar results, personality being more important than behavioural plasticity, were shown in a study on mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), where increasing personality and decreasing plasticity over ontogeny were attributed to a reduction in environmental uncertainty (Polverino et al. Citation2016).

Finally, Fowler-Finn and Hebets (Citation2011) showed that wolf spider (Hogna georgicola) males with conspicuous body ornamentation showed greater degree of plasticity in courtship under predation risk. This observation corresponds with the pattern found in our courtship model, where smaller and less conspicuous wing ornamentation was related to higher mating success and consistency of courtship effort.

We found no effect of boldness-aggression traits on male mating success. Instead, the models showed significant effects, albeit in opposite direction, of both wing patch size and thorax length. The reasoning for the negative relationship between wing patch size and male mating success here would be similar as for the patch size and courtship relation discussed above, whereas the positive effect of body size (thorax length) on male mating success is in line with results in other studies of both invertebrates and vertebrates (Thornhill & Alcock Citation1983; Reiss Citation1989; Stearns Citation1992). This has mainly been explained by that sexual selection can enhance body dimensions that are beneficial for fighting for territories and mates, resisting predators, etc. (e.g. Partridge et al. Citation1987; Karsten et al. Citation2009). With regard to damselfly biology, the muscles located in thorax influence both flight ability and endurance (Corbet Citation2004). Higher investment into muscle mass increases the chance of escaping predators and congeneric avoidance, resisting wind gusts and allows for more effective territory patrolling (Corbet Citation2004; Rüppell et al. Citation2005; Golab et al. Citation2017). In some populations high aggression and boldness might be a bad fit for the social context and reduce male mating success as has been shown for instance in water striders (Sih et al. Citation2014).

We found no evidence that the most successful males show intermediate values of consistency and plasticity in boldness and aggression. Also, unlike most studies (Bell Citation2007) the boldness-aggression correlation was rather weak with significant correlation only between boldness and mild aggression (chasing male), but not between boldness and heavy fights. Since male chasing is a safe and short social interaction which in fact may reduce costs of open aggression (Briffa & Sneddon Citation2010) we suggest that our study are not showing a classic boldness-aggression correlation. It is probable that the favourable environmental conditions that these damselflies experience at the centre of species distribution (Sagarin & Gaines Citation2002) are not selected for bolder and/or more aggressive behaviours in general, and therefore neither plasticity nor consistency in boldness or heavy fights affects male mating success directly. Similar results were shown in previous studies on, e.g. stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (Bell Citation2005) and zebrafish Danio rerio (Way et al. Citation2015), where the authors failed to detect a correlation between aggression and boldness under conditions without severe stressors.

Order effects, which arise when the order in which experimental treatments are administered affects the response, can be a potential confounding factor in personality studies (Schuett et al. Citation2010). However, it is unlikely that order effects were present in our study, as previous research has shown that neither time of day nor habitat disturbance affected the territorial behaviours of the studied population (Golab et al. Citation2013).

In summary, our study provides insights into how personality, morphology and behavioural correlations affect mating success in a wild insect population. Our results demonstrate the importance of consistency over plasticity in the context of environmental change. Further studies on how behavioural profiles affect insect fitness over time and space (i.e. larger geographic gradients) are needed to test the generality of found results and to support/reject their suggested explanations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Narodowe Centrum Nauki [2014/15/N/NZ8/00338].

References

  • Amat I, Desouhant E, Gomes E, Moreau J, Monceau K. 2018. Insect personality: What can we learn from metamorphosis? Current Opinion in Insect Science 27:46–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2018.02.014.
  • Anderson CN, Cordoba‐Aguilar A, Drury JP, Grether GF. 2011. An assessment of marking techniques for odonates in the family Calopterygidae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 141(3):258–261. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01185.x.
  • Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Archard GA, Braithwaite VA. 2010. The importance of wild populations in studies of animal temperament. Journal of Zoology 281(3):149–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00714.x.
  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: Multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour 60:145–164. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1446.
  • Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C. 2013. Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biological Reviews 88(2):310–326. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12000.
  • Bangham J, Chapman T, Partridge L. 2002. Effects of body size, accessory gland and testis size on pre- and postcopulatory success in Drosophila melanogaster. Animal Behaviour 64(6):915–921. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2002.1976.
  • Bell AM. 2005. Behavioural differences between individuals and two populations of stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18(2):464–473. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00817.x.
  • Bell AM. 2007. Future directions in behavioural syndromes research. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274(1611):755–761. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.0199.
  • Bell AM, Sih A. 2007. Exposure to predation generates personality in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ecology Letters 10(9):828–834. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01081.x.
  • Briffa M, Rundle SD, Fryer A. 2008. Comparing the strength of behavioural plasticity and consistency across situations: Animal personalities in the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275(1640):1305–1311. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0025.
  • Briffa M, Sneddon L. 2010. Contest behavior. In: Westneat D, Fox C, editors Evolutionary behavioral ecology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 246–265.
  • Brodin T. 2009. Behavioral syndrome over the boundaries of life carryovers from larvae to adult damselfly. Behavioral Ecology: Official Journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology 20(1):30–37. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn111.
  • Burk T. 1982. Evolutionary significance of predation on sexually signalling males. The Florida Entomologist 65(1):90–104. DOI: 10.2307/3494148.
  • Chapple DG, Simmonds SM, Wong BBM. 2012. Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(1):57–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.010.
  • Corbet P. 2004. Dragonflies: Behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Oxford: Harley Books.
  • Cordero A. 1999. Forced copulations and female contact guarding at a high male density in a Calopterygid damselfly. Journal of Insect Behavior 12(1):27–37. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020972913683.
  • Cordero Rivera A, Andrés JA. 2002. Male coercion and convenience polyandry in a calopterygid damselfly. Journal of Insect Science 2(14):1–7. DOI: 10.1673/031.002.1401.
  • Córdoba-Aguilar A. 2002. Wing pigmentation in territorial male damselflies, Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis: A possible relation to sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 63(4):759–766. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1974.
  • Córdoba-Aguilar A. 2008. Dragonflies and damselflies: Model organisms for ecological and evolutionary research. USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Córdoba-Aguilar A, Cordero-Rivera A. 2005. Evolution and ecology of Calopterygidae (Zygoptera: Odonata): Status of knowledge and research perspectives. Neotropical Entomology 34(6):861–879. DOI: 10.1590/S1519-566X2005000600001.
  • Cote J, Clobert J, Brodin T, Fogarty S, Sih A. 2010. Personality-dependent dispersal: Characterization, ontogeny and consequences for spatially structured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1560):4065–4076. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0176.
  • Dall SRX, Bell AM, Bolnick DI, Ratnieks FLW, Sih A. 2012. An evolutionary ecology of individual differences. Ecology Letters 15(10):1189–1198. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01846.x.
  • Dijkstra K, Schröter A, Lewington R. 2020. Field guide to the dragonflies of Britain and Europe. 2nd ed. London.
  • Dingemanse NJ, Kazem AJN, Reale D, Wright J. 2010. Behavioural reaction norms: Animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(2):81–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.013.
  • Dingemanse NJ, Reale D. 2005. Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour 142:1159–1184. DOI: 10.1163/156853905774539445.
  • Fisher DN, James A, Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T. 2015. Behaviour in captivity predicts some aspects of natural behaviour, but not others, in a wild cricket population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20150708. Available: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2015.0708. Accessed Dec 2020 7.
  • Fitzstephens DM, Getty T. 2000. Colour, fat and social status in male damselflies, Calopteryx maculata. Animal Behaviour 60(6):851–855. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1548.
  • Fogarty S, Cote J, Sih A. 2011. Social personality polymorphism and the spread of invasive species: A model. The American Naturalist 177(3):273–287. DOI: 10.1086/658174.
  • Fowler-Finn KD, Hebets EA. 2011. The degree of response to increased predation risk corresponds to male secondary sexual traits. Behavioral Ecology 22(2):268–275. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq197.
  • Gadgil M. 1972. Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection. The American Naturalist 106(951):574–580. DOI: 10.1086/282797.
  • Golab MJ, Gołąb PA, Contreras-Garduño J, Zając T, Sniegula S. 2017. The effects of habitat deterioration and social status on patrolling behavior in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx splendens. Polish Journal of Ecology 65(1):122–131. DOI: 10.3161/15052249PJE2017.65.1.011.
  • Golab MJ, Sniegula S. 2012. Changes in reproductive behavior in adult damselfly Calopteryx splendens (Odonata: Calopterygidae) in response to flood. Entomological Science 15(3):280–287. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2012.00516.x.
  • Golab MJ, Sniegula S, Antoł A, Brodin T. 2021. Adult insect personality in the wild—Calopteryx splendens as a model for field studies. Ecology and Evolution 11(24):18467–18476. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8439.
  • Golab MJ, Sniegula S, Brodin T. 2022. Cross-latitude behavioural axis in an adult damselfly Calopteryx splendens (Harris, 1780). Insects 13(4):342. DOI: 10.3390/insects13040342.
  • Golab MJ, Śniegula S, Drobniak SM, Zając T, Serrano-Meneses MA. 2013. Where do floaters settle? An experimental approach in odonates. Animal Behaviour 86(5):1069–1075. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.09.013.
  • Gosling SD. 2001. From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin 127(1):45–86. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.45.
  • Grether G. 1996. Sexual selection and survival selection on wing coloration and body size in the rubyspot damselfly Hetaerina americana. Evolution 50(5):1939–1948. DOI: 10.2307/2410752.
  • Herborn K, Macleod R, Miles WTS, Schofield ANB, Arnold K, Arnold KE. 2010. Personality in captivity reflects personality in the wild. Animal Behaviour 79:835–843. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.026.
  • Karsten KB, Andriamandimbiarisoa LN, Fox SF, Raxworthy CJ. 2009. Sexual selection on body size and secondary sexual characters in 2 closely related, sympatric chameleons in Madagascar. Behavioral Ecology 20(5):1079–1088. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp100.
  • Korsten P, van Overveld T, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E. 2013. Genetic integration of local dispersal and exploratory behaviour in a wild bird. Nature Communications 4:2362. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3362.
  • Kotiaho JS. 2002. Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetles. Behavioral Ecology 13(6):791–799. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/13.6.791.
  • Kralj-Fišer S, Schuett W. 2014. Studying personality variation in invertebrates: Why bother? Animal Behaviour 91:41–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.016.
  • Kuchta SR, Svensson EI. 2014. Predator-mediated natural selection on the wings of the damselfly Calopteryx splendens: Differences in selection among trait types. The American Naturalist 184(1):91–109. DOI: 10.1086/676043.
  • Kuitunen K, Kotiaho J, Luojumaki M, Suhonen J. 2011. Selection on size and secondary sexual characters of the damselfly Calopteryx splendens when sympatric with the congener Calopteryx virgo. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne de Zoologie 89(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1139/Z10-090.
  • Lichtenstein JLL, Rice HK, Pruitt JN. 2018. Personality variation in two predator species does not impact prey species survival or plant damage in staged mesocosms. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 72(4):1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-018-2487-5.
  • Lytle D, Bogan M, Finn D. 2008. Evolution of aquatic insect behaviours across a gradient of disturbance predictability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 275(1633):453–462. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1157.
  • Marden JH, Waage JK. 1990. Escalated damselfly territorial contests are energetic wars of attrition. Animal Behaviour 39(5):954–959. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80960-1.
  • Mather J, Logue D. 2013. The bold and the spineless : Invertebrate personalities. In: Carere C, Maestripieri D, editors. Animal personalities : Behavior, physiology, and evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 13–35.
  • Mathot KJ, Dingemanse NJ. 2014. Plasticity and personality. In: Integrative organismal biology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 55–69. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118398814.ch4. Accessed Oct 2022 14.
  • Mazué GPF, Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X, Godin J-G. 2015. Boldness–exploration behavioral syndrome: Interfamily variability and repeatability of personality traits in the young of the convict cichlid (Amatitlania siquia). Behavioral Ecology 26(3):900–908. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arv030.
  • Mouchet A, Dingemanse NJ, Pinter-Wollman N. 2021. A quantitative genetics approach to validate lab- versus field-based behavior in novel environments. Behavioral Ecology 32(5):903–911. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arab059.
  • Niemelä PT, Dingemanse NJ. 2014. Artificial environments and the study of ‘adaptive’ personalities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29(5):245–247. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.02.007.
  • Osborn A, Briffa M. 2017. Does repeatable behaviour in the laboratory represent behaviour under natural conditions? A formal comparison in sea anemones. Animal Behaviour 123:197–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.036.
  • Outomuro D, Johansson F. 2015. Bird predation selects for wing shape and coloration in a damselfly. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 28(4):791–799. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12605.
  • Partridge L, Ewing A, Chandler A. 1987. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: The roles of male and female behaviour. Animal Behaviour 35(2):555–562. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80281-6.
  • Pettorelli N, Hilborn A, Duncan C, Durant SM. 2015. Chapter two - Individual variability: The missing component to our understanding of predator–prey interactions. In: Pawar S, Woodward G, Dell A editors. Advances in ecological research. Vol. 52. Academic Press. (Trait-Based Ecology - From Structure to Function). pp. 19–44. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250415000021. Accessed Oct 2022 6.
  • Pigliucci M. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond Nature and nurture. 1st ed. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
  • Polverino G, Cigliano C, Nakayama S, Mehner T. 2016. Emergence and development of personality over the ontogeny of fish in absence of environmental stress factors. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70(12):2027–2037. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-016-2206-z.
  • Rayner JG, Schneider WT, Bailey NW. 2020. Can behaviour impede evolution? Persistence of singing effort after morphological song loss in crickets. Biology Letters 16(6):20190931. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2019.0931.
  • R Development Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available: http://www.R-project.org.
  • Réale D, Reader S, Sol D, McDougall P, Dingemanse N. 2007. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews 82(2):291–318. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.x.
  • Reaney LT, Backwell PRY. 2007. Risk-taking behavior predicts aggression and mating success in a fiddler crab. Behavioral Ecology 18(3):521–525. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm014.
  • Reiss MJ. 1989. The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/allometry-of-growth-and-reproduction/13F0415230CA60BED2A56EFD2275AE34. Accessed Feb 2023 1.
  • Riotte-Lambert L, Matthiopoulos J. 2020. Environmental predictability as a cause and consequence of animal movement. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35(2):163–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.09.009.
  • Rosenthal GG, Flores Martinez TY, García de León FJ, Ryan MJ. 2001. Shared preferences by predators and females for male ornaments in swordtails. The American Naturalist 158(2):146–154. DOI: 10.1086/321309.
  • Rüppell G, Hilfert-Rüppell D. 2013. Biting in dragonfly fights. International Journal of Odonatology 16(3):219–229. DOI: 10.1080/13887890.2013.804364.
  • Rüppell G, Hilfert-Rüppell D. 2020. Rapid acceleration in Odonata flight: Highly inclined and in-phase wing beating. International Journal of Odonatology 23(1):63–78. DOI: 10.1080/13887890.2019.1688017.
  • Rüppell G, Rehfeldt G, Schütte C, Hilfert-Rüppell D. 2005. Die Prachtlibellen Europas: Gattung Calopteryx. Hohenwarsleben, Germany: Westarp Wissenschaften.
  • Sagarin RD, Gaines SD. 2002. The ‘abundant centre’ distribution: To what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecology Letters 5(1):137–147. DOI: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00297.x.
  • Schuett W, Tregenza T, Dall SRX. 2010. Sexual selection and animal personality. Biological Reviews 85(2):217–246. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00101.x.
  • Schutte G, Reich M, Plachter H. 1997. Mobility of the rheobiont damselfly Calopteryx splendens (Harris) in fragmented habitats (Zygoptera: Calopterygidae). Odonatologica 26(3):317–327.
  • Shamble PS, Wilgers DJ, Swoboda KA, Hebets EA. 2009. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology 20(6):1242–1251. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp116.
  • Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC. 2004b. Behavioral syndromes: An ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(7):372–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009.
  • Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC, Ziemba RE. 2004a. Behavioral syndromes: An integrative overview. The Quarterly Review of Biology 79(3):241–277. DOI: 10.1086/422893.
  • Sih A, Chang AT, Wey TW. 2014. Effects of behavioural type, social skill and the social environment on male mating success in water striders. Animal Behaviour 94:9–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.010.
  • Siva-Jothy MT. 1999. Male wing pigmentation may affect reproductive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136(10/11):1365–1377. DOI: 10.1163/156853999500776.
  • Smith BR, Blumstein DT. 2007. Fitness consequences of personality: A meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology 19(2):448–455. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm144.
  • Stearns SC. 1992. The Evolution of life histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stettmer C. 1996. Colonisation and dispersal patterns of banded (Calopteryx splendens) and beautiful demoiselles (C-virgo) (Odonata: Calopterygidae) in south-east German streams. European Journal of Entomology 93(4):579–593.
  • Stuart–Fox DM, Ord TJ. 2004. Sexual selection, natural selection and the evolution of dimorphic coloration and ornamentation in agamid lizards. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 271(1554):2249–2255. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2802.
  • Svensson E, Eroukhmanoff F, Friberg M. 2006. Effects of natural and sexual selection on adaptive population divergence and premating isolation in a damselfly. Evolution 60(6):1242–1253. DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01202.x.
  • Thompson DJ, Hassall C, Lowe CD, Watts PC. 2011. Field estimates of reproductive success in a model insect: Behavioural surrogates are poor predictors of fitness. Ecology Letters 14(9):905–913. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01655.x.
  • Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. Evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Tynkkynen K, Grapputo A, Kotiaho J, Rantala M, Väänänen S, Suhonen J. 2008. Hybridization in Calopteryx damselflies: The role of males. Animal Behaviour 75(4):1431–1439. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.017.
  • Tynkkynen K, Rantala M, Suhonen J. 2004. Interspecific aggression and character displacement in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17(4):759–767. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00733.x.
  • van Oers K, Drent PJ, de Goede P, van Noordwijk AJ. 2004. Realized heritability and repeatability of risk-taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 271(1534):65–73. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2518.
  • Waage JK. 1987. Choice and utilization of oviposition sites by female Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: Calopterygidae). I. Influence of site size and the presence of other females. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 20(6):439–446. DOI: 10.1007/BF00302987.
  • Way GP, Kiesel AL, Ruhl N, Snekser JL, McRobert SP. 2015. Sex differences in a shoaling-boldness behavioral syndrome, but no link with aggression. Behavioural Processes 113:7–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.12.014.
  • Wolf M, Weissing FJ. 2012. Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(8):452–461. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.001.
  • Yuen CH, Pillay N, Heinrichs M, Schoepf I, Schradin C. 2016. Personality traits are consistent when measured in the field and in the laboratory in African striped mice (Rhabdomys pumilio). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70(8):1235–1246. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-016-2131-1.
  • Yuen CH, Schoepf I, Schradin C, Pillay N. 2017. Boldness: Are open field and startle tests measuring the same personality trait? Animal Behaviour 128:143–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.009.