Behavioral flexibility is related to exploration, but not boldness, persistence or motor diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral flexibility, the ability to change behavior when circumstances change based on learning from previous experience, is thought to play an important role in a species' ability to successfully adapt to new environments and expand its geographic range. However, behavioral flexibility is rarely directly tested at the individual level. This limits our ability to determine how it relates to other traits, such as exploration or persistence, that might also influence individual responses to novel circumstances. Without this information, we lack the power to predict which traits facilitate a species' ability to adapt behavior to new environments. We use great-tailed grackles (a bird species; hereafter “grackles”) as a model to investigate this question because they have rapidly expanded their range into North America over the past 140 years. We evaluated whether grackle behavioral flexibility (measured as color reversal learning) correlated with individual differences in the exploration of new environments and novel objects, boldness towards known and novel threats, as well as persistence and motor diversity in accessing a novel food source. We determined that exploration of a novel environment across two time points and persistence when interacting with several different novel apparatuses were repeatable in individual grackles. There was no relationship between exploration or persistence and the two components of flexibility - the rate of learning to prefer a color option in the reversal learning task, and the rate of deviating from a preferred option. However, grackles that underwent serial reversal training to experimentally increase behavioral flexibility were more exploratory in that they spent more time in close proximity to the novel environment relative to control individuals. This indicates that, the more an individual investigated a novel apparatus, the more it was able to potentially learn and update its knowledge of current reward contingencies to adapt behavior accordingly. Our findings improve our understanding of the traits that are linked with flexibility in a highly adaptable species. We highlight the importance of using multiple different methods for measuring boldness and exploration to evaluate consistency of performance and therefore the methodological validity. We also show a link between exploration and behavioral flexibility that could facilitate adaptation to novel environmental changes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".