@article{2fdf38621fff4ef5a72a20287b590754,
title = "Non-consumptive effects of predation: does perceived risk strengthen the genetic integration of behaviour and morphology in stickleback?",
abstract = "Predators can shape genetic correlations in prey by altering prey perception of risk. We manipulated perceived risk to test whether such non-consumptive effects tightened behavioural trait correlations in wild-caught stickleback from high- compared to low-risk environments due to genetic variation in plasticity. We expected tighter genetic correlations within perceived risk treatments than across them, and tighter genetic correlations in high-risk than in low-risk treatments. We identified genetic variation in plasticity, with genetic correlations between boldness, sociality, and antipredator morphology, as expected, being tighter within treatments than across them, for both of two populations. By contrast, genetic correlations did not tighten with exposure to risk. Tighter phenotypic correlations in wild stickleback may thus arise because predators induce correlational selection on environmental components of these traits, or because predators tighten residual correlations by causing environmental heterogeneity that is controlled in the laboratory. Our study places phenotypic integration firmly into an ecological context.",
keywords = "Behavioural ecology, evolutionary characters, functional integration, G-matrix evolution, gene–environment interactions, modularity, morphology, personality, plasticity integration, predation, Smegmamorpha, Predatory Behavior, Phenotype, Animals",
author = "Dingemanse, {Niels J.} and Iain Barber and Dochtermann, {Ned A.}",
note = "Funding Information: We are grateful to K. Boeke, R. Geoghegan, K. Meijer, C. Oosterhof, M. Schrama, T. Sparrow and F. van der Plas for assistance, and Welsh Water for permission to capture stickleback on their property. The experiment was designed by NJD and IB within the guidelines of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour, and undertaken under a U.K. Home Office project licence (PPL 40.2969, held by IB). We thank J. Wright and B.‐E. Saether for discussion and support. NJD was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant 863.05.002) and by the Research Council of Norway (STORFORSK project 'Population genetics in an ecological context', held by B.‐E.Saether). NAD was supported by the US National Science Foundation (grant IOS 1557951). The manuscript was prepared by NJD and NAD and co‐written by IB. Funding Information: We are grateful to K. Boeke, R. Geoghegan, K. Meijer, C. Oosterhof, M. Schrama, T. Sparrow and F. van der Plas for assistance, and Welsh Water for permission to capture stickleback on their property. The experiment was designed by NJD and IB within the guidelines of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour, and undertaken under a U.K. Home Office project licence (PPL 40.2969, held by IB). We thank J. Wright and B.-E. Saether for discussion and support. NJD was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant 863.05.002) and by the Research Council of Norway (STORFORSK project 'Population genetics in an ecological context', held by B.-E.Saether). NAD was supported by the US National Science Foundation (grant IOS 1557951). The manuscript was prepared by NJD and NAD and co-written by IB. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 The Author. Ecology Letters published by CNRS and John Wiley & Sons Ltd",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ele.13413",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "107--118",
journal = "Ecology Letters",
issn = "1461-023X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "1",
}