Context is key: A comment on Herczeg et al. 2019

Abstract

In the last several years, there has been a surge in the number of studies addressing the causes and consequences of among‐individual variation in cognitive ability and behavioural plasticity. Here, we use a recent publication by Herczeg et al. (2019: 32(3), 218–226) to highlight three shortcomings common to this newly emerging field. In their study, Herczeg et al. attempted to link variation in cognitive ability and behavioural plasticity by testing whether selection lines of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) that differ in relative brain size also differ in behavioural plasticity, as might be expected if the costs to plasticity are predominantly derived from the cost of developing large brains. First, residual brain size may not be a suitable proxy for ‘cognitive ability’. Recent work has shown that intraspecific variation in cognitive ability can be better understood by considering variation in the specific brain areas responsible for the relevant behaviours as opposed to whole‐brain mass. Second, the measure of behavioural plasticity, habituation, is unlikely to fulfil the assumptions that plasticity is both adaptive and costly. Finally, we point out several misconceptions regarding animal personality that continue to contribute to the choice of traits that are not well aligned with study objectives. Elucidating the mechanisms underlying among‐individual variation in cognition and behavioural plasticity within populations requires integration between behavioural ecology and comparative cognition, and the study system developed by Herczeg et al. has the potential to provide important mechanistic insights. We hope that by articulating and critically appraising the underlying assumptions that are common in these traditionally separate disciplines, a strong foundation can emerge to allow for more fruitful integration of these fields.

Yes, correct context is indeed the key: An answer to Haave‐Audet et al. 2019

“…Sometimes, these causes and consequences are related to behavioural plasticity. In their commentary on our paper, Haave‐Audet, Guillette, and Mathot () claim to “articulately and critically” appraise the underlying assumptions that are common in these disciplines using our paper as an example. Haave‐Audet et al focus on two specific issues related to the tested hypothesis in our original contribution: (a) “What does it mean to have a heavy brain?” and (b) “Habituation as a measure of behavioural plasticity: is it both adaptive and costly?”.…”