Reference no: EM13831348

Part A: Design & Execute Study

• Your assignment is to design and execute a study examining the influence of predation risk on other activities.
• Your study can be either experimental or observational, but it must examine the influence of one or more variables on behaviour.
• The following project suggestions include experiments that can be done using an aquarium or a terrarium, in your backyard, a nearby park, a woodlot, a stream, or, if you are lucky enough to live near it, the seashore.
• Each suggestion includes a brief explanation of a trade-off between avoiding predators and performing other activities, such as foraging, courtship, etc. Possible experimental manipulations and study organisms are suggested, and exemplary studies are referenced. Feel free to modify any of these project suggestions or to devise your own experiments. Your study should be written as if it were a paper to be published in a journal- look at any of the papers you have read in this course for examples. Your paper will be evaluated according to the "Project Write-up Guide" that follows the "Project Suggestions" below.

Project Suggestion:

• Vigilance (scanning for predators) before and after the appearance of a predator.

Time spent watching for predators (being vigilant) increases an animal's safety but decreases the time it has available for other activities. After a predator appears, animals should become more vigilant. A potential experimental design involves comparing the vigilance of animals at a feeder before and after introducing a predator (a human sitting nearby, or a cat or dog tethered nearby). (Note: Group size must be accounted for because vigilance will vary with group size.)

Gluck, E. (1987). An experimental study of feeding, vigilance and predator avoidance in a single bird. Oecologia, 71, 268-272.

Project Write-up Guide

1. Introduction

The introduction should include a clear discussion of the background of the problem (referencing the relevant literature) and a logical development of the hypothesis (hypotheses), ending in a clear statement of the hypothesis (hypotheses).

2. Objectives

The objectives should include clear and unambiguous predictions.

3. Methods and Materials

Methods and materials should be clearly described. The project should be designed specifically to test the predictions.

4. Results

Presentation of the results should be well organized. Tables and graphs should illustrate results, and appropriate statistical tests and interpretations should be used.

5. Discussion

A good discussion should meet some or all of the following criteria:

• Interprets results with regard to the predictions.
• Relates results to the background literature.
• Suggests problems with the design and potential solutions.
• Raises other research questions.

Part B: Critique of Research Article

Please read the paper below.

Caro, T., Lombardo, L., Goldzien, A., & Kelly, M. (1995). Tail-flagging and other antipredator signals in white-tailed deer: New data and synthesis. Behavioural Ecology, 6(4), 442-450.

Critique the research article by answering the questions contained in the "Critique Form" in Unit 3 of the Course Units. When you submit your answers, be sure to label each answer with the corresponding question label on the "Critique Form" (thus, the answer to question "1a" will be labelled "1a"). Since a critique is based on opinion, most of the questions require you to "justify" or "explain" your answers. Thus, there are often several acceptable answers to a particular question, and most of the marks for a question will be assigned to your justification or explanation.

Before you begin your critique, review the following guidelines:

• The "Critique Instructions" at the end of Unit 3 in your Course Units
• The following article in your printed Course Readings: Fitzgibbon, C. D., &Fanshawe, J. H. (1988.) Stotting in Thomson's gazelles: An honest signal of condition. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 23, 69-74.
• The sample critique of the above article (end of Unit 3 in your Course Units)

Critique Instructions

 Several factors convinced us to use critiques to evaluate your understanding of the concepts in this course. Most important, we hope that reading scientific research articles will give you a first-hand view of what is involved in testing questions about behaviours-something you as a distance student may not be as directly exposed to as are students at a campus where such research is being conducted. Second, we want to demonstrate that the field is full of unanswered (and incompletely answered) questions, and that answers develop over time through contributions from many sources. The assigned papers are chosen from areas of research that are currently very active. Third, being able to read research articles critically is an important skill, especially if you continue on to graduate research. Finally, we feel the assigned papers are interesting because they ask questions about behaviours whose causes are uncertain.

Your critique will consist of answers to the questions on the following "Critique Form." A sample critique is also included below to indicate the types of answers expected. Since a critique is based on opinion, most of the questions require you to "justify" or "explain" your answers. This means that there are often several acceptable answers to a particular question, and most of the marks for a question will be assigned to your justification or explanation.

The following "Critique Form" is a list of questions you should answer in evaluating a paper-you will use the same form more than once. Your answers may be handwritten, typed, or word-processed. If they're handwritten, make sure they are legible. However you submit your answers, be sure to label each answer with the corresponding question label on the "Critique Form" (so that the answer to question 1a will be labelled 1a, etc.).

Part of this assignment will involve critiquing a published paper. Follow the "Critique Form" and the sample critique of the paper "Stotting in Thomson's gazelles: An honest signal of condition" by C. D. FitzGibbon and J. H. Fanshawe (1988, Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 23: 69-74).

Critique Form

1. Introduction

a) What hypothesis (hypotheses) was (were) being tested?

b) If more than one hypothesis was being tested, were they competing hypotheses? Explain.

c) Into which of the three levels of explanation (of behaviour) introduced in Unit 1 did each hypothesis fit? Justify your answer.

d) If the hypothesis concerned the ultimate ("why") causes of the behaviour, was the logic based on individual or group selection? Explain.

e) Did the introduction develop the hypotheses logically? Justify your answer.

2. Predictions

a) For each hypothesis, state the predictions that were tested (using graphs wherever appropriate).

3. Methods

a) Was the method used to test the predictions experimental? Explain.

b) If the method was experimental, for each prediction tested, what experimental treatments were used, why, and what results were predicted?

c) If the method was non-experimental, were predictions tested using direct observation or comparative data from other species? Explain.

d) i) If direct observation was used, for each prediction tested, what aspects of behaviour were observed, why, and what results were predicted?

ii) If comparative data were used, for each prediction tested, how did the animals whose behaviours were compared differ? Also, why did the investigator feel that these differences would provide a test of that prediction?

4. Results and Discussion

a) What did the investigator(s) conclude?

b) Why did the investigator(s) conclude this from the data?

c) Are you convinced that the conclusion(s) is (are) correct? Justify your answer.

d) What would improve the strength of the conclusion(s)? Explain.

Part C: Long Answer Questions

1. When Scott Creel and his colleagues studied elk behaviour in Montana, they found that elk tended to form larger groups when foraging in the open far away from forest cover. Why might this result lead us to interpret large group formation by elk as an antipredator response? Creel and company noted that the elk aggregated only on days when wolves were absent. In the presence of wolves, elk remained in small herds. What is the significance of these observations for the antipredator hypothesis for the tendency of elk to group together under some conditions? In scientific terms, what label should be given to these observations: hypothesis, prediction, test data, or scientific conclusion? What is the significance of this work for studies of mud-puddling by butterflies?

2. Inhibitory neural messages often play a key role in organizing the behaviour of an animal, as the mantis demonstrates. Mature female crickets (Gryllusbimaculatus) approach chirping males. About one hour after mating, during which the male transfers a spermatophore to his partner, the female stops tracking the calls of males of her species. If you found that emptying the sperm storage organ caused the female to resume responding to calling males, you could speculate on how the female cricket's nervous system controlled this aspect of her behaviour. How might inhibitory messages be involved? What is the adaptive significance of this proximate mechanism?

3. Although the number of cases of mate choice by females dwarfs the known examples of choosy males, that rarer form of mate choice does occur and may be more widespread than often appreciated. In this light, why might it be adaptive for male jungle fowl to enhance the speed with which their sperm can travel when roosters inseminate attractive versus unattractive females? Why might male potbellied seahorses (see Figure 8.4) strongly prefer to court large females, whereas females show no such preference for large males? And why might male black widow spiders bias courtship in favour of well-fed females as opposed to starved ones?