What would you like to know?

[dad of axle]

If you were a psychology major you could do a study on how and why people pick the names for their axolotls. THere are some great axolotl names on this site.

 

[Star]

Oops forgot to check back! Will read through later when I'm back from uni, thanks for the input! (i'm hoping lol)

 

[peter5930]

Re: What would you like too know?

Breeding and fighting is not social behavior, and I agree, I seriously doubt they have the mental capacity to be a social animal.
One axolotl attacking another is not non-verbal communication.
And as we've already discussed there are no scientific studies, so why don't you provide a study providing evidence to the contrary? All you present is behavior you have interpreted to be social interaction(which isn't actually social interaction), and anthropomorphic explanations. There really is no need for scientific data to prove this. If an animal is fine in isolation it is not a social animal, end of story.

I think there's some confusion here over the terms being used. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following things to say about social behaviour in animals:

social behaviour, animal, the suite of interactions that occur between two or more individual animals, usually of the same species, when they form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or parental behaviour, engage in disputes over territory and access to mates, or simply communicate across space.

Social behaviour is a complex combination of the costs and benefits of living in groups, dominance interactions, conflict between the sexes, nepotism when groups are composed of relatives, and cooperation.

The word social often connotes amicable interaction, accounting for the common misconception that social behaviour always involves cooperation toward some mutually beneficial end. Biologists no longer believe that cooperative behaviours necessarily evolve for the good of the species. Instead, they believe that the unit of natural selection is usually the individual and that social behaviour is fraught with competition.

In addition to feeding and defensive aggregations, some aggregations are based exclusively on mating. These include the explosive breeding assemblages of frogs and toads, the aggregations of male birds and mammals at leks (display sites used only for mating), and various insect aggregations including bees and wasps (order Hymenoptera), flies (order Diptera), and butterflies (superfamily Papilionoidea).

When group members are genetically related, interactions will potentially involve nepotism, the tendency for individuals to favour kin. Examples of this sort of favouritism include parents favouring their own offspring, siblings forming alliances, and a tendency for individuals to favour their closest relatives.

Social behaviour is also involved in social dominance and the maintenance of territories, regardless of whether dominance status or territories are held by individuals or by groups of individuals. Territorial species tend to be distributed over the landscape in a more regular fashion than would be predicted if they used the landscape randomly. An important concept in understanding territorial behaviour is the notion of economic defendability. Economic defendability postulates that, in order to be territorial, the benefits of maintaining exclusive access to a space must outweigh the individual’s or group’s costs of defending the space from other members of its own kind. In the territorial systems of many species, overt defense in the form of direct aggressive behaviour against intruders has given way to indirect defense in the form of vocalization and scent marking.

In many cases, displays appear to involve redirected, ritualized aggression, during which individuals compete for dominance (and thus indirectly for access to mates or resources) via contests of strength or endurance. Contestants appear to avoid using deadly force, even though in some species—such as wolves and rattlesnakes (Crotalus)—individuals appear well equipped to kill or significantly harm each other.

In some frogs, a preference for certain components of the male’s call occurred in the ancestor of species producing the call. This modern preference suggests that the call was favoured by a preexisting bias in ancestral females.

Do axolotls engage in any of these behaviours? Do they, for instance, behave differently towards other axolotls depending on the degree of relatedness (do they engage in nepotism)? I don't have any information for Ambystoma mexicanum, but I do for Ambystoma tigrinum.

Kin recognition and cannibalism in polyphenic salamanders

We investigated kin discrimination among larvae of Arizona tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum) which occur as “typical” morphs that feed mostly on invertebrate prey and occasionally on conspecifics, and as “cannibal” morphs that feed primarily on conspecifics. When housed with smaller larvae that differed in relatedness, both cannibals and typicals preferentially consumed less-related individuals. Cannibals ate typicals much quicker when the choice was between nonkin and siblings than when the choice was between nonkin and cousins, indicating that cannibals could distinguish different categories of relatives. Cannibals were less likely to eat a larval sibling that was a cannibal morph than a sibling that was a typical morph. Occluding animals' nares temporarily eliminated kin discrimination, implying that olfaction is important in recognition. Larvae from different sibships varied considerably in their ability to discriminate kin, and the greater the probability that a larva from a given sibship would develop into a cannibal morph, the more likely the members of that sibship were to discriminate kin. Our results enable us to infer the functional significance of kin recognition in this species and to develop an evolutionary model of the mechanisms underlying the joint control of kin recognition and cannibalistic polyphenism.

Is there evidence for territorial behaviours? Again, I can only refer more broadly to the genus Ambystoma:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Although intraspecific aggression has been reported for a number of plethodontid salamanders, only two species from the family Ambystomatidae have been tested previously, and only one species (Ambystoma maculatum) showed such behavior. In this study, I tested four other species of Ambystoma (A. opacum, A. macrodactylum, A. tremblayi, and A. talpoideum) for aggression toward conspecifics during encounters staged in the laboratory. I also tested A. opacum and A. macrodactylum for long-term avoidance of conspecifics when housed in pairs and for responses to introduced substrates on which conspecifics had lived. Each species showed at least some forms of intraspecific aggression. Some individuals from all species bit conspecific intruders. Touching of the snout to substrates or directly onto conspecifics was also widespread. Ambystoma macrodactylum showed long-term avoidance of conspecifics, but A. opacum showed neither avoidance of conspecifics nor significant responses to conspecific substrates.

A little information on agonistic behaviour, and confirmation that it's regarded as a form of social behaviour:

In ethology, agonistic behaviour is any social behaviour related to fighting. Thus it is broader than aggressive behaviour because it includes not only actual aggression but also threats, displays, retreats, placating aggressors, and conciliation. The term was coined by Scott and Fredericson in 1951.[1] Agonistic behaviour is seen in many animal species because resources including food, shelter, and mates are often limited.

Some forms of agonistic behaviour are between contestants who are competing for access to the same resources, such as food or mates. Other times it involves tests of strength or threat display that make animals look large and more physically fit, a display that may allow it to gain the resource before an actual battle takes place. Although agonistic behaviour varies among species, agonistic interaction consists of three kinds of behaviours: threat, aggression, and submission.[2] These three behaviours are functionally and physiologically interrelated with aggressive behaviour yet fall outside the narrow definition of aggressive behaviour. While any one of these divisions of behaviours may be seen alone in an interaction between two animals, they normally occur in sequence from start to end.[3] Depending on the availability and importance of a resource, behaviours can range from a fight to the death or a much safer ritualistic behaviour, though ritualistic or display behaviours are the most common form of agonistic behaviours.[3]

What do we find if we look at social behaviour in salamanders in general?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Experiments have revealed complex behaviour patterns such as individual recognition and territoriality in both males and females

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Plethodontid salamanders exhibit a rich diversity of social behaviours, ranging from complex communication systems to intricate tactics played during combat. Unified concepts for the evolution and function of many of these behaviours are not possible presently because only a few genera have been studied in depth (Aneides, Desmognathus, Eurycea, and especially Plethodon), different species inhabit a wide range of ecological conditions (fossorial, terrestrial, arboreal, semiaquatic, and aquatic), and life histories differ even within the genera (e.g., larval stage or direct development). Thus we focus on some aspects of non-courtship behaviour that have provided insights into plethodontid social systems, and we suggest areas for future research that may lead to a more complete understanding of how social interactions are shaped by environmental constraints.

Body condition and order of arrival affect cooperative nesting behaviour in four-toed salamanders Hemidactylium scutatum

Joint nesting is defined as two or more conspecific females laying eggs in the same nest. Female four-toed salamanders may lay and brood eggs in a solitary nest, lay eggs in a joint nest and brood them along with eggs of other females, or lay eggs in a joint nest that is brooded by another female. Using data from a 9-year study in mesocosms, I found that body condition index scores were associated with nesting behaviour. Joint nesters who stayed with the nest were in the best condition, whereas joint nesters who deserted the nest were in the worst condition. Solitary nesters, who almost always stayed with their nests, were in intermediate condition. Nesting behaviour was also a function of whether a female founded or joined a nest. Females that laid eggs first in what ultimately became a joint nest tended to stay regardless of relative body condition. Nest joiners stayed if they were in relatively good condition, but deserted if they were in relatively poor condition. Nest founders may tolerate nest joiners because there is no cost to doing so, they cannot nest again within a season, and the costs of fighting to exclude a potential nest joiner are prohibitive. Body condition of individuals varies in populations and may often affect costs and benefits of nesting decisions. Therefore, the inclusion of body condition variation into models of joint nesting will lead to a more predictive theory of nesting and breeding decisions.

Also see Antifungal skin bacteria, embryonic survival, and communal nesting in four-toed salamanders, Hemidactylium scutatum.

ScienceDirect - Animal Behaviour : Sexual coercion in a territorial salamander: females punish socially polygynous male partners

Sexual intimidation (sensu Smuts & Smuts 1993, Advances in the Study of Behavior, 22, 1–63) occurs when members of one sex aggressively ‘punish’ members of the other sex that refuse to mate with them or that merely associate with other individuals of the opposite sex. We examined Clutton-Brock & Parker's (1995, Animal Behaviour, 49, 1345–1365) concept that while males of many species use punishment (intimidation) to coerce females into social or even mating monogamy, such behaviour by females towards males should be rare. However, females in some species are territorial, and aggressive, and thus they may play an active role in sexual intimidation. We tested this proposition in laboratory experiments with territorial red-backed salamanders, Plethodon cinereus, that had been found as single (nonpaired) individuals and in male–female pairs (we term members of a pair ‘partners’) in the forest. We manipulated paired males such that they either had associated with another female before returning to their female partners (socially polygynous) or had not (socially monogamous). In addition, we manipulated single males such that they either had associated with another female before encountering a focal female for the first time (socially polygynous) or had not (socially naı̈ve). During the autumn courtship season, females were significantly more aggressive (threat displays and biting) towards socially polygynous partners relative to those that were socially monogamous. In addition, females spent significantly less time touching socially polygynous partners relative to socially monogamous partners. However, females that met a male for the first time did not differ significantly in their behaviour towards socially polygynous and naı̈ve males. During the late spring, females displayed no behavioural differences towards either male partners or strangers. Thus, female aggression was context dependent, with increased aggression directed only towards polygynous partners and only during the autumn. We infer that females attempt to control social polygyny by partners through aggression during the courtship season but that this coercion ceases in the spring when the females are preoccupied with searching for nest sites for brooding their eggs.

Social behaviours are hardly unheard of in salamanders, at least by the commonly used definition of 'social behaviour', and they can range from simple behaviours like chasing away intruders to quite complex behaviours like coercing reproductive partners into remaining monogamous. Although it's unknown what, if any, social behaviours axolotls have, social behaviours have been found in their close and not so close relatives.

If an animal is fine in isolation it is not a social animal, end of story.

Axolotls are not a social animal, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that they'll engage in social behaviours.

I think you're confusing an animal which is capable of social behaviour with an animal which requires it. A social animal requires social interaction in much the same way that an obligate carnivore requires meat, but an animal which can remain healthy without meat may still engage in carnivory and an animal which can remain healthy in isolation may still engage in social behaviour when given the opportunity.

 

[PAWS]

Possibly not so highbrow as my colleague posters above but I would love to see a poll on life expectancy from other members and whether this differs significantly between Axi types (excluding accidents and suicide of course!).

Also whether they would selectively choose one food over another when presented with several food types at once.

 

[peter5930]

Some more studies on social behaviour in salamanders, in case anyone's interested:

ScienceDirect - Animal Behaviour : Territorial salamanders assess sexual and competitive information using chemical signals

Adult male and female red-backed salamanders, Plethodon cinereus, gain information about gender and body size of conspecifics through chemical signals. Responses to information about gender differed between the sexes: females produced faecal pellets (territorial pheromonal markers) fastest when exposed to their own pheromones while males produced faecal pellets fastest when exposed to pheromones of females. These data suggest that for females the primary pheromonal function of faecal pellets is advertisement (i.e. defence) of their own areas, and that faecal pellets produced by males are of primary importance in the attraction of mates. Two types of responses to information concerning body size were found. (1) Both male and female intruders exposed to the pheromones of resident males tended to produce larger faecal pellets when the intruder and resident were of similar body sizes. This phenomenon was not observed when the resident was female. (2) Male intruders were significantly more aggressive when exposed to the pheromones of individuals of similar body size and more submissive when exposed to pheromones of individuals that were larger. Therefore, information about body size (an indicator of competitive ability) of males may be transmitted via chemical signals and may cause changes in the behaviour of conspecifics.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, Volume 59, Number 6 - SpringerLink

Gregarious behaviour (i.e. living in groups in contrast to a solitary life) is commonly observed in mammals, but rarely documented in amphibians. Environmental features and/or animal mutual attractions can promote the formation of aggregations that may both reduce the risks of dehydration and predation and increase mate access and fitness. Luschan’s salamander (Mertensiella luschani) lives in permanently arid Mediterranean environments; individuals shelter in cracks and crevices and leave only during favourable periods. In this study we examined the role of chemical tracks, in self and conspecific recognition (i.e. gregarious/solitary behaviour), on the social structure of this species. Our results show that juveniles and adults of both sexes use chemical scents deposited on substrate to relocate their shelter. In contrast to numerous other salamander species, Luschan’s salamanders also use social information, conveyed by conspecific scents, to identify a safe shelter. Furthermore, this scent marking does not play a role in sexual attraction but allows sex discrimination. This species exhibits gregarious behaviour (i.e. conspecific attraction) as a possible adaptation to dry environments. We discuss both ultimate and proximate factors in the evolution from a solitary to a gregarious life.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, Volume 63, Number 2 - SpringerLink

The relative roles of kinship and familiarity in affecting an individual’s growth and fitness are not easy to disentangle. Not only is an individual more likely to have prior behavioral interactions with conspecifics in close proximity, it may also be related (in terms of kinship) to those nearby conspecifics. While some studies have inferred that kin discrimination affects fitness correlates, other studies found that familiarity alone can reduce aggressive interactions, thus increasing fitness. These studies have all focused on intra-age class pairs or groups. However, many animals interact with conspecifics from different cohorts. In many populations, adults of Plethodon cinereus territorially defend rocks and logs that retain moisture and food resources. We investigated whether juveniles of P. cinereus grew more in the presence of adults that were relatives or familiar. We collected pairs of juveniles and adults found under the same cover objects in the forest (familiar) and pairs of juveniles and adults found under different cover objects, approximately 10 m apart (unfamiliar). We determined parentage and relatedness of the adult–juvenile pairs and then placed these pairs in semi-natural mesocosms for 17 days. We found that juveniles housed with familiar adults had significantly greater increases in mass and snout–vent length than juveniles housed with unfamiliar adults in 2006 but not in 2007. Relatedness had no effect on growth. In addition, juveniles cohabitating with adults were not more likely to be their offspring. At least under certain environmental conditions, familiarity with adults, independent of relatedness or parentage, increased the growth of juvenile salamanders.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, Volume 55, Number 5 - SpringerLink

We investigated the ontogeny of responses to scent marks in immature terrestrial salamanders (Salamandra lanzai) that inhabit the southwest Alps. In this species, sexual maturity is usually reached at about 8 years, and adults exhibit territoriality. One should expect territoriality to take place largely before the acquisition of sexual maturity if sexual competition is not the main force driving territoriality. However, both the difficulties for inexperienced animals to find a suitable territory and size-related competition may delay the acquisition of territoriality in juveniles. We performed choice tests with juveniles belonging to two age groups (1±1 years old versus 4±1 years old). Each focal animal was offered, in random order, the choice between two shelters, one without scent and the other containing one of the following scents: own, same-aged animal, a juvenile belonging to the other age group, or adult female. We also performed choice tests with adult females for which the scents of two juveniles belonging to a different age group were successively offered in a random order. Older juveniles were strongly attracted toward their own shelter and mostly avoided the shelters that contained the scent of juveniles of about the same age and of adult females. Adult females avoided the scents of older juveniles but not younger juveniles. These results therefore suggest that older juveniles use territorial marking. Conversely, young juveniles behaved randomly with respect to their own scents and to those of a same-aged juvenile, and they were significantly attracted towards the odor of an older animal, especially adult females. Both older juveniles and adult females displayed a random behavior toward the scents of young juveniles. Our results suggest that young juveniles do not defend territories but use spaces occupied by older individuals.

 

[xxianxx]

Also whether they would selectively choose one food over another when presented with several food types at once.

The answer is yes, individual axolotls do have a food preferance, i had a melanoid who wouldnt eat worms, a leucistic who would try to gorge itself on fresh mackeral whilst its tankmates wernt overly impressed. An interesting experiment would be if a food preference would lead to a specialisation in feeding strategies, for instance would an axolotl who likes fish spend its time hunting them rather than picking invertebrates out of the mud or weed ?

 

[peter5930]

Re: What would you like too know?

Correct, the fact that they appear to pick up on body cues is a form of interaction though , the aggressor does not necessarily adopt a threat/feeding stance as a form of communicating its intentions but it appears that the intended target recognizes the body cues and will take avoiding action. This could be interpreted as non verbal communication if the aggressor intends its intended target to understand its intentions, unfortunately I cant ask the axolotl its motivation for adopting that particular stance. Another potential example of communication i have observed and only in specific circumstances, is when a young axolotl who has been isolated for several months, is placed in a tank with another axolotl who is used to company, the isolated axolotl when approached will take a stiff legged stance raising its head and exposing its throat possibly to make itself look bigger , i first noticed this behavior several years ago, the posture is not one i have seen replicated in any other circumstance and whenever it is employed the other axolotl backs off. I have observed this behavior several times since and am planning to isolate several axolotls from my next batch, so hopefully I can record this as a threat display and an actual example of body language, bear with me though it wont be for a few months.

I've seen this display too, in axolotls, Salamandra gallacia and crested newts, but I've only noticed it being directed at me; I haven't seen my animals directing it at each other.

In the crested newts, the display shows their brightly coloured ventral surface and they sometimes make the display at me if they're on land and I'm hovering over their tank to watch them, feed them or perform maintenance, so it might be an anti-predator response, where the newts advertise their toxins by showing their colours. S. gallacia don't have a particularly colourful underside to show off, but it seems to be the same sort of anti-predator reflex.

The axolotls are a bit different; it tends to be the larger, bolder, more aggressive axolotls that give me the display, and they sometimes do it after I make eye contact with them and hold the eye contact for a while, so I think it's less likely that they're trying to ward me off as a predator, and more likely that it's a social behaviour.

It could be a submissive posture, where the larger, bolder animals are communicating that they're content to accept me as the dominant animal. Crocodiles have a similar behaviour; they'll raise their snouts into the air to signal submission and avoid a fight when approached by a larger, more dominant crocodile.

Crocodiles, like many other animals, try and circumvent actual physical violence through a combination of different visual, acoustic, chemical and mechanical signals. Dominant animals raise their bodies out of the water, whereas submissive animals raise their heads up at a steep angle and often vocalise. Two dominant animals meeting will try and out-intimidate each other, but if this fails then violence is the only recourse.

Another possibility is that they're challenging me and trying to get me to back down and accept them as the dominant ones, or perhaps it's a territorial display, where I'm perceived as a rival from an adjacent territory.

They see enough of me that I could have been integrated into whatever passes for an axolotl's social awareness, and regarded as something more than a potential predator, mobile piece of scenery or food dispenser.

 

[xxianxx]

Re: What would you like too know?

Breeding and fighting is not social behavior, and I agree, I seriously doubt they have the mental capacity to be a social animal.
One axolotl attacking another is not non-verbal communication.
And as we've already discussed there are no scientific studies, so why don't you provide a study providing evidence to the contrary? All you present is behavior you have interpreted to be social interaction(which isn't actually social interaction), and anthropomorphic explanations. There really is no need for scientific data to prove this. If an animal is fine in isolation it is not a social animal, end of story.

When making statements of "fact" it is customary to provide supporting evidence or cite the studies your information is drawn from, failure to do so undermines your argument and stating that there is "no need for scientific data" because you are right is .... amusing, as is suggesting that somebody else should conduct scientific research to disprove "facts" which you cannot support. I am sure we will have this conversation again.

 

[GazerOfStars]

Alright, social behavior as a big suggestion. Have you thought about writing about their regenerative abilities?

Even in hick North Dakota here a university near me studied Axolotls in one of their biology classes.

From what I learned from Sludgemonkey, most of our albino and leucistic Axies were fostered in a lab with the help of the Axie's ability to promote cell regrowth.

P.s. Once your project is all said and done with I'd love to read what you wrote about