Personality differences between sexes are present in a peaceful lizard, but not in an aggressive one: a chemical communication trial in two <i>Liolaemus</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal personality can be defined as behavioral individual consistency across contexts and time, and sociability may facilitate it. Boldness and exploration can be considered as social conflictive behaviors and in lizards, social scent can either diminish or promote social conflicts. We studied boldness and exploration in Liolaemus albiceps Lobo and Laurent, 1995 and Liolaemus coeruleus Cei and Ortiz, 1983, and tested whether Liolaemus albiceps, a lesser aggressive species, presents higher individual consistency in a socially nonconflictive behavior, such as escape (boldness). We also expect Liolaemus coeruleus, a more aggressive species, to present higher individual consistency in exploration, which is socially more conflictive behavior. We exposed lizards to their own conspecifics and control scent treatments. We calculated the repeatability for boldness and exploration, analyzed their correlation, and tested for behavioral plasticity. Boldness and exploration were repeatable in Liolaemus albiceps at species level, with females showing highly repeatable boldness, and males, highly repeatable exploration. Liolaemus coeruleus exhibited no significant repeatability for either behavior. There was no correlation between these two behaviors, and both species showed plasticity. Liolaemus albiceps individuals were bolder and explored less under conspecific scents. Liolaemus coeruleus individuals explored less in presence of their own scents than novelty scents, and presented interindividual variation in plasticity. A peaceful lifestyle may favor behavioral consistency within individuals, whereas a more aggressive lifestyle may constrain within and among individual consistency in a chemical communication context. However, individual differences in plasticity could counterbalance this constraint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".