Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
Abstract We investigated how exposure duration (time that two individuals initially interact) and separation interval (time between the initial interaction and a subsequent interaction) affect recognition memory of conspecifics in male red-backed salamanders Plethodon cinereus. Previous studies have demonstrated that this species aggressively defends territories. We recorded
aggressive behavior to assess recognition memory, because aggression is more intense toward previously unencountered individuals compared to previously encountered individuals in this species. We found that with 15-min exposures and 5-day separation intervals, focal males did not spend significantly more time threatening unfamiliar intruders than familiar intruders. After
either 8-hour exposures and 5-day separation intervals and 5-day exposures and 5-day separation intervals, focal males spent significantly more time threatening unfamiliar intruders than familiar intruders. These results suggest that male red-backed salamanders can remember familiar conspecifics (e.g., territorial neighbors) after at least an 8-hour exposure duration and that memory
persists at least as long as 5 days. After 5-day exposure and 15-day separation intervals, we found no significant difference in aggressive behavior toward familiar and unfamiliar intruders. Long separation intervals (15 days) may lead either to loss of memory
of previously familiar individuals or, alternatively, aggressive reassessment of individuals as only a change in behavior indicates
positively that memory has occurred. Thus, variance in territorial defense within an individual may depend on its ability to recognize conspecific males [Current Zoology 58 (3): 326334, 2013].
Keywords
327
328
Current Zoology
Vol. 59
No. 3
following four groups: focal salamanders, future familiar intruders, future unfamiliar intruders, and the partner for the unfamiliar intruder (unfamiliar pair: see
methods below) so that no intruder salamander was used
in more than one treatment. Each focal salamander was
then tested in two treatments: familiar and unfamiliar
intruder trials. After the focal salamander went through
the first treatment, we waited a week before starting the
focal salamanders in the second treatment. We randomly
selected half of the focal salamanders to receive familiar
intruder treatments first and the other half to receive
unfamiliar treatments first. We eliminated the surrogate
treatment from experiments 24, because after experiment 1 we were aware that salamanders would respond
more aggressively towards live intruders than inanimate
objects. Therefore, it was not necessary to continue this
treatment.
On day 1, for familiar intruder trials, we placed the
focal salamander into a chamber containing a moistened
(with spring water) paper towel. On day 5, we introduced the familiar intruder into the focal salamanders
chamber for 8 h. After 8 h, we removed the now familiar intruder and changed the focal salamanders substrate. On day 9, we changed the focal salamanders
substrate again. On day 10, we reintroduced the familiar
male intruder into the focal salamanders chamber, and
recorded the behavior of the focal salamander for 15
min.
Focal salamanders in the unfamiliar intruder trials
went through the same procedures as in familiar intruder
trials (above), except on day 10, when we introduced an
unfamiliar intruder into the focal salamanders chamber.
Unfamiliar intruders were given the same social experience as familiar intruders, as each unfamiliar intruder interacted with a male it had never seen before
(unfamiliar pair) for 8 hours on day 5 (the same time
that focal salamanders and familiar intruders were together). We then introduced the unfamiliar intruder to
the focal salamander on day 10 and recorded the behavior of the focal salamander. All substrate changes were
the same as in familiar intruder trials. We recorded the
same behavioral patterns (ATR and number of bites) as
in experiment 1.
1.4 Experiment 3: 5-day exposure and 5-day separation Interval
We conducted experiment 3 between April and May
2005, from 10: 0016: 00 h, using the same salamanders
as in experiment 1, but those males that were focals in
experiment 1 were not used as focals in experiment 3.
Also, salamanders that interacted with each other in
329
330
Current Zoology
Vol. 59
No. 3
no a priori prediction whether aggression would increase or decrease between treatments. Since too few
bites occurred for statistical analysis, in experiments
13, they are not mentioned further.
For experiment 4 (5-day exposure and 15-day separation interval), we used a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed
ranks test to compare both time in ATR and number of
bites by focal salamanders between the two treatments.
We adjusted to 0.025 because time in ATR and number of bites are both aggressive behaviors. We also
tested for a treatment-order effect.
Results
For experiment 1 (15-min exposure and 5-day separation interval), focal males differed significantly in
ATR behavior across the three treatments (Fr = 16, n =
26, df = 2, P < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Using post hoc comparisons we found that focal salamanders spent significantly
more time threatening both familiar intruders and unfamiliar intruders than threatening the surrogate controls.
No significant differences occurred in ATR threat posture towards familiar and unfamiliar intruders. Also, we
found no significant treatment order effects for ATR in
any of the four experiments.
For experiments 2 (8-hour exposure and 5-day separation interval) and 3 (5-day exposure and 5-day separation interval), focal male salamanders spent significantly more time threatening unfamiliar male intruders
than familiar male intruders (Experiment 2: Wilcoxon
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
3 Discussion
Red-backed salamanders at our research site defend
Fig. 4
331
332
Current Zoology
Vol. 59
No. 3
(Quinn and Graves, 1999). To better understand individual recognition and territoriality in this species one
needs to examine the environmental conditions where
territoriality exists so that one can then examine the
social interactions, phenotypic variation, and recognition signals needed for individual recognition to occur.
Acknowledgements We thank T. Williams and S. Nguyen
for help running experiments; H. Wilbur and E. Nagy for permission to conduct research at Mountain Lake Biological Station; B. Dantzer, D. McCauley, J. Fuller and her parents for
help in collecting salamanders; T. Kohn for her help in maintaining the salamanders; A. Aspbury, J. Burns, C. Gabor, M.
Kalish, P. Klerks, P. Leberg, and B. Moon for comments on
previous versions of the manuscript. This research was partly
funded by the Graduate Student Organization and the Biology
Department of The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and
by a Louisiana Board of Regents Doctoral Fellowship
(LEQSF (2003-08)-GF-31 to N.R.K. through R.G.J.). J.M.D.
was supported by a USDA IFAFS Multidisciplinary Graduate
Education Training Grant (2001-52100-11506). Salamanders
were collected under permit 020999 during October 2004 and
permit 026118 during October 2005 and April 2006 from the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Laboratory protocols were approved by The University of Louisiana
at Lafayette Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC No.
2003-8717-094, No. 2004-8717-077, and No. 2005-8717123).
References
Alberici da Barbiano L, Rangel L, Aspbury AS, Gabor CR, 2012.
Male permissiveness in a unisexual-bisexual mating complex
promotes maintenance of a vertebrate unisexual spermdependent species. Behaviour 149: 869879.
Alberts AC, Werner DI, 1993. Chemical recognition of unfamiliar
conspecifics by green iguanas: Functional significance of different signal components. Anim. Behav. 46: 197199.
Aragon P, Lopez P, Martin J, 2001. Chemosensory discrimination
of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by lizards: Implications
of field spatial relationships between males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 128133.
Bee MA, Gerhardt HC, 2002. Individual voice recognition in a
territorial frog Rana catesbeiana. P. R. Soc. B. 269: 1443
1448.
Bee MA, Kozich CE, Blackwell KJ, Gerhardt HC, 2001. Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green
frogs Rana clamitans: Implications for individual discrimination. Ethology 107: 6584.
Blaustein AR, Waldman B, 1992. Kin recognition in anuran amphibians. Anim. Behav. 44: 207221.
Botero CA, Riveros JM, Vehrencamp SL, 2007. Relative threat
and recognition ability in the responses of tropical mockingbirds to song playback. Anim. Behav. 73: 661669.
Carazo P, Font E, Desfilis E, 2008. Beyond 'nasty neighbours' and
'dear enemies'? Individual recognition by scent marks in a lizard Podarcis hispanica. Anim. Behav. 76: 19531963.
333
334
Current Zoology
Vol. 59
No. 3
Page RB, Jaeger RG, 2004. Multimodal signals, imperfect information, and identification of sex in red-backed salamanders
Plethodon cinereus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56: 123139.
Palphramand KL, White PCL, 2007. Badgers Meles meles discriminate between neighbors, alien, and self scent. Anim. Behav. 74: 429436.
Quinn VS, Graves BM, 1999. Space use in response to conspecifics by the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus,
Plethodontidae, Caudata). Ethology 105: 9931002.
Ruiz JC, Soler MJ, Dasi C, 2004. Study time effects in recognition
memory. Percept. Motor. Skill. 98: 638642.
Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution
47: 647657.
Sayler A, 1966. The reproductive ecology of the red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus in Maryland. Copeia 1966: 183193.
Sheehan MJ, Tibbetts EA, 2008. Robust long-term social memories in a paper wasp. Curr. Biol. 18: R851R852.
Sheehan MJ, Tibbetts EA, 2010. Selection for individual recognition and the evolution of polymorphic identity signals in
Polistes paper wasps. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 570577.
Shettleworth SJ, 1998. Cognition, Evolution and Behavior. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Shettleworth SJ, 2001. Animal cognition and animal behaviour.
Anim. Behav. 61: 277286
Siegel S, Castellan Jr. NJ, 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simons RR, Felgenhauer BE, 1992. Identifying areas of chemical
signal production in the red-backed salamander Plethodon
cinereus. Copeia 1992: 776781.
Temeles EJ, 1994. The role of neighbours in territorial systems:
When are they dear enemies? Anim. Behav. 47: 339350.
Thaker M, Gabor CR, Fries JN, 2006. Sensory cues for conspecific associations in aquatic San Marcos salamanders. Herpetologica. 62: 151155.
Tibbetts EA, 2002. Visual signals of individual identity in the
wasp Polistes fuscatus. P. R. Soc. B. 269: 14231428.
Tibbetts EA, Dale J, 2007. Individual recognition: It is good to be
different. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 22: 529537.
Van Dyk DA, Evans CS, 2007. Familiar-unfamiliar discrimination
based on visual cues in the Jacky dragon Amphibolurus muricatus. Anim. Behav. 74: 3344.
Waldman B, Bishop PJ, 2004. Chemical communication in an
archaic anuran amphibian. Behav. Ecol. 15: 8893.
Waldman B, Frumhoff PC, Sherman PW, 1988. Problems of kin
recognition. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 3: 813.
Walls SC, Mathis A, Jaeger RG, Gergits WF, 1989. Male salamanders with high-quality diets have faeces attractive to females. Anim. Behav. 38: 546548.
Wildy EA, Blaustein AR, 2001. Learned recognition of interspecific predators in larval long-toed salamanders Ambystoma maccrodactylum. Ethology. 107: 479493.
Wise SE, Jaeger RG, 1998. The influence of tail autotomy on
agonistic behaviour in a territorial salamander. Anim. Behav.
55: 17071716.