Did the introduction develop the hypotheses logically

Part A: Critique of Research Article

1. Introduction

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

The hypothesis that was being tested was about the anti-predation behaviour exhibited by the while-tailed deer and how the response is affected in the presence of the predator.

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

There was a hypothesis which suggested that the deer feed in a group when the number of wolves is low. However, the presence of a larger subset of wolves causes the deer group to aggregate.

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

The hypothesis is concurrent with the trigger of a response type of behaviour. This is because the presence or absence of a predator triggers the response in the prey. As a result, the prey is frightened and becomes much more vigilant in the presence of a predator, or even the slightest scent of the predator’s presence.

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

The logic of the response was based on group selection. This is because behavioural response study has shown that everyone studying this topic of interest should be convinced that the response from they prey acts as a trigger from the predator’s approach. As a result, fear is developed from it.;

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

In the introduction, the reader was provided with a brief overview of how vigilance constitutes a part of behavioral ecology and is typically refers to as an animal’s examination of its surrounding as a way of maintaining its safely and at a secure distance from its enemy. This is an important habit to have while searching for wild food resources because the prey is most vulnerable at that time.

In the study conducted, the predator-prey relationship is closely being studied along with any hypotheses associated with it that have been developed and properly justified.

2. Predictions

a) For each hypothesis, state the predictions that were tested.

1. Head Jerk Rate

It was found that if there are changes which occur in the rate of the jerk of the head.

2. Duration of Head Jerk

The duration (in time) for which the jerk lasted was calculated and recorded.

3. Speed of feeding

A change in the speed of feeding on the food material was also kept under consideration

3. Methods

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

The method utilized to assess the predictions was experimental because the conditions remained natural and there was an artificial source (ie: the food material) in which the deer liked that was introduced.

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

Throughout the experiment, it was found that the presence of a predator has a real time effect on the prey. That is, the prey adopts a more vigilant behaviour which negatively effects other activities such as a feeding and movement. Essentially, the food material consumed was natural for the deer, but was articificially introduced.

c) If the method was non-experimental, were predictions tested using direct observation or comparative data from other species? Explain.
If the method was non-experiment, this would have led us to observational results. This is because observations tend to have problems and fluctuations which can be attributed to the unpredictable temperature conditions.

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

It was observed that the predictions tested involved the vigilance aspect. It was easy to observe the fact that there was suIDen increase in the activity and this made deer lose their focus from the feed.

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

The differences in different animal’s behavior are possible due to the vicinity of the predator. Also each species varies in their act of running, the speed with which they can run. The ability to camouflage is also a determinant when it comes to the reaction of animals against predator’s presence.

4. Results and Discussion (There is a long list of conclusions here related to hypotheses- please include/relate to all of them for full marks on each question in this section; B to E)

a) What did the investigator(s) conclude?

According to the investigator the activity of vigilance, which involves the animals to become more alert when the predator is in the surrounding area adversely affects the ability of animals to focus on other activities like feeding.

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

This was concluded through the three aspects kept under consideration. They include:

1. Head Jerk Rate

It was identified if there are changes that occur in the rate of the jerk of the head

2. Duration of Head Jerk

The time duration for which the jerk lasted was also calculated and kept in the record

3. Speed of feeding

A change in the speed of feeding on the food material was also kept under consideration

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

According to me the conclusion is correct. There is actually a change seen in the behaviour of the animals of they sense that a predator is around. The experiment helped in concluding this fact and it supports the behavioral pattern considered to be working in favour of the animals. The conclusion also bears in literature that due to the act of being vigilant there is a shift in focus from feeding to staying alert and aware of what is to happen and to gauge the movement of the predator.

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

The study of the predator behaviour when the prey senses its presence will be helpful too. The way that the prey reacts apart from being more alert also can help in making the conclusion strong. Through these aIDition sand supplying the evidence of chain of reactions that occur when an animal not a predator comes across will also improve the study and its results. OK

Part B: Short Answer Questions

1. a) A badger living in Oklahoma could hunt for either scorpions or ground squirrels (or both). Scorpions provide only 10 calories each, but require only 2 minutes to find, on average, with an aIDitional 3 minutes to remove the stinger; ground squirrels offer 1000 calories, but take an average of 3 hours to find and an aIDitional 90 minutes to capture, kill, and consume. If the badger’s ultimate goal is to maximize its rate of caloric gain, should it forage for squirrels, scorpions, or both? Show your math.

• Ground squirrel = 1000 calories in 4.5 hrs
• Scorpions = 120 calories/per hr = 540 calories in total
o Therefore, though the rate of prey capture is greater for scorpion hunters, the badger would be better hunting ground squirrels.

3. If the distribution of individuals over a set of habitats is consistent with ideal free distribution theory, then
a. The fitness of individuals in different habitats will be the same.
b. The areas associated with higher fitness will be occupied before habitats linked to lower fitness.
c. The mean survival time of individuals in the different habitats will be different.
d. Some habitats will attract territorial individuals while others will not.

4. Contest resolution that is mediated by harmless, non-contact threat displays a Darwinian puzzle because

a. The winners of these interactions have nevertheless expended time and energy asserting control of the resources they secure by winning.

b. The losers of these interactions concede defeat without actual fighting and thereby prematurely give up resources that would raise their fitness

c. The winners of these interactions would benefit from injuring or killing those competitors that will again return to challenge them for key resources.

d. The loser’s refusal to fight strips the species of the means by which it could remove excess individuals from the population.

2. Observation: You observe “shaky leaf walking” in a video of a Madagascaranmantid (one of about 1800 species, a member of one of dozens of genera of mantids, and a member of one of eight families of mantids). Hypothesis: The behaviour works because it makes the mantid look like a dried leaf blown about on the leaf litter of the forest floor or a trembling leaf on a low-lying shrub.

Below are predictors – things that would results if the test of your hypothesis were accurate so need to reword

a) State a prediction from this hypothesis that could be tested via aIDitional observation.

b)State a prediction that could be tested via experiment.

c). State a prediction that could be tested via the comparative method (use a legitimate example of the comparative method based on the phenomenon of convergent evolution).

d) State a prediction that could be tested via the comparative method (use a legitimate example of the comparative method based on the phenomenon of divergent evolution).

e) State a prediction that illustrates the illegitimate use of the comparative method. After stating your prediction briefly, explain why this prediction would not be accepted by many behavioural biologists.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"