Behavioural individuality is thought to be caused by differences in genes and/or environmental conditions. Therefore, if these sources of variation are removed, individuals are predicted to develop similar phenotypes lacking repeatable individual variation. Moreover, even among genetically identical individuals, direct social interactions are predicted to be a powerful factor shaping the development of individuality. We use tightly controlled ontogenetic experiments with clonal fish, the Amazon molly ( Poecilia formosa ), to test whether near-identical rearing conditions and lack of social contact dampen individuality. In sharp contrast to our predictions, we find that (i) substantial individual variation in behaviour emerges among genetically identical individuals isolated directly after birth into highly standardized environments and (ii) increasing levels of social experience during ontogeny do not affect levels of individual behavioural variation. In contrast to the current research paradigm, which focuses on genes and/or environmental drivers, our findings suggest that individuality might be an inevitable and potentially unpredictable outcome of development.

Size‐selective harvesting is assumed to alter life histories of exploited fish populations, thereby negatively affecting population productivity, recovery, and yield. However, demonstrating that fisheries‐induced phenotypic changes in the wild are at least partly genetically determined has proved notoriously difficult. Moreover, the population‐level consequences of fisheries‐induced evolution are still being controversially discussed. Using an experimental approach, we found that five generations of size‐selective harvesting altered the life histories and behavior, but not the metabolic rate, of wild‐origin zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish adapted to high positively size selective fishing pressure invested more in reproduction, reached a smaller adult body size, and were less explorative and bold. Phenotypic changes seemed subtle but were accompanied by genetic changes in functional loci. Thus, our results provided unambiguous evidence for rapid, harvest‐induced phenotypic and evolutionary change when harvesting is intensive and size selective. According to a life‐history model, the observed life‐history changes elevated population growth rate in harvested conditions, but slowed population recovery under a simulated moratorium. Hence, the evolutionary legacy of size‐selective harvesting includes populations that are productive under exploited conditions, but selectively disadvantaged to cope with natural selection pressures that often favor large body size.

The brain is a plastic organ, and so intraspecific studies that compare results obtained from wild individuals with those from common‐garden experiments are crucial for studies aiming to understand brain evolution. We compared volumes of brain regions between reproductively isolated populations of a neotropical fish, Poecilia mexicana, that has locally adapted to perpetual darkness (Cueva Luna Azufre), toxic hydrogen sulphide in a surface stream (El Azufre) or a combination of both stressors (Cueva del Azufre). Wild fish showed habitat‐dependent differences: enlarged telencephalic lobes and reduced optic tecta were found in fish living in darkness and sulphidic waters, in darkness without hydrogen sulphide or exposed to light and sulphide; fish from the sulphidic cave additionally showed enlarged cerebella. Comparison with common‐garden reared fish detected a general decrease in brain size throughout populations in the lab, and little of the brain size divergence between lab‐reared ecotypes that was seen in wild‐caught fish. The pronounced differences in brain region volumes between ecotypes in the wild might be interpreted within the framework of mosaic evolution; however, the outcomes of common‐garden experiments indicate a high amount of phenotypic plasticity. Our study thus highlights the importance of combining the investigation of brain size in wild populations with common‐garden experiments for answering questions of brain evolution.