Reference no: EM13920745 , Length: word count:1100

Instructions: Critique of Research Article

Please read the paper: 1) 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:

• Read following articles: 2) Fitzgibbon, C. D., &Fanshawe, J. H. (1988.) Stotting in Thomson's gazelles: An honest signal of condition. 3) Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 23, 69-74.

These three readings will remind you of what is expected in your critique.

ASSIGNMENT 2 - SHABANI

Part A: Critique of Research Article
Critique Form

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. (include all 3 hypotheses on first page)

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. (This will be longer based on the three hypotheses)

• 1st: tail-flagging, snorting, foot-stampling and other anti predator behaviours are a signal to conspecifics

• 2nd: Tail-flagging, snorting, foot-sampling and other anti predator behaviours are a signal directed at predators

• 3rd: tail-flaggingm snorting, foot-stampling and other anti-predator behaviours are not signals to conspecifics or predators but merely assist animal with escape from predators.

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. (some are yes - need more justificaitons since there 3 hypotheses and not only one)

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.; (need more here, relate to "ultimate" and overall class content terms - refer to book)

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 (All predictions need more details for full marks as they do not answer the questions)
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. (You would match above hypotheses with the list of predictions)

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 (2/10)

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, what experimental treatments were used, why, and what results were predicted?

Throughout the experiment (this means they did an experiment - adjust answer accordingly), 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.

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