There are several ways in which we can train captive-born individuals to recognize their predators. In our case, the squirrel monkey needs to recognize hawks as their main predators.
We explore the difficulty of educating prey to detect a predator based on sight as an illustration. However, our predictions are not mode-specific: the same factors apply whether training animals to learn about smell or auditory input. Equivalent to training animals the visual characteristics of a conditioned stimulus, teaching or increasing visual recognition abilities are similar to training animals the visual characteristics of a conditioned stimulus. It is generally documented that, through classical conditioning approaches, animals may acquire the visual properties of both artificial and physiologically meaningful stimuli, including simulated predators (Kinnear, 2017).
Animals are predisposed to behave in a specific manner under certain conditions. An unconditioned unpleasant stimulus always results in species-specific defense reactions (SSDR). If the animal possesses many SSDRs, the one used is determined by the level of threat sensed by the animal. The training complexity, in this case, is determined by whether the current antipredator behavior is also an effective response to the primary predator (Griffin et al., 2000).
If the hunting behaviors of the main predator are comparable to those of wild predators, the selected SSDR is likely to operate. Additionally, training to develop a fear response to the primary predator should result in quantitative changes in escape actions that increase their efficacy, such as increased flight distance or reaction time. Such alterations are contingent upon the predator’s early recognition. Similarly, avoidance behaviors against existent predators are expected to be effective against important predators, and training should enhance their efficacy even further (Griffin et al., 2000).
Certain forms of learning are only possible during “sensitive intervals.” For example, both familial imprinting and tune learning occur throughout the early stages of life. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted to determine if learning about predators is confined to a particular developmental stage, yet it would seem counter-intuitive for animals to be capable of such learning at just certain developmental stages. However, there is evidence that dietary preferences and predatory abilities are acquired during the early stages of development. As a result, kids may get a greater understanding of predators than grownups do (Ansari et al.,2016).
How would you Determine if the Training Protocol was successful?
References:
Kinnear, T. (2017). Music in nature, nature in music: sounding the environment in contemporary composition. PhD diss., University of British Columbia. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/download/62452495/ubc_2017_may_kinnear_tyler.pdf
Griffin, A. S., Blumstein, D. T., & Evans, C. S. (2000). Training captive?bred or translocated animals to avoid predators. Conservation biology, 14(5), 1317-1326. Retrieved from: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99326.x
Ansari, R., Hughes, C. L., & Husain, K. (2016). Ligand-Mediated Toxicology: Characterization and Translational Prospects. In Translational Toxicology (pp. 113-137). Humana Press, Cham. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27449-2_4
An evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) is a technique (or group of strategies) that is impermeable once adopted by a population in response to a particular environment, that is, it cannot be displaced by a novel or initially uncommon approach (or set of strategies) (De Smedt, 2013).
In the Hawk-Dove Model, why can’t a Population of all Hawks or all doves be an ESS?
John Maynard Smith (1982) established the hawk-dove paradigm to describe the underlying tension between prosocial and antisocial conduct (selfishness). The model depicts a battle between two opposing behavioral strategies, hawks and doves, over a common resource. This contest shows the prosocial evolutionary paradox. The hawk-dove model simplifies the study of factors that foster prosocial behavior development. Within groups, hawks outcompete doves, but doves outcompete hawks. To evolve, the equilibrium of selection throughout and across groups must favor hawks or doves. Hawks and doves cannot all be ESS because one of them (doves) will be driven extinct. After all, the hawk always wins in a fight with pigeons (Rangil et al 2011).
Explain the pay-off Matrix in your answer.
The payoff is the value gained by determining the relative value of the advantages acquired as a result of an interaction. This value defines the organism’s net gain or loss.
Here, our payoff is that doves are not driven extinct because they do not fight eagles or among themselves.
Eagles, on the other hand, fight amongst themselves, which regulates their number because they are often left with injuries.
Provide two examples from the Literature of Studies using Game Theory to explain
In the context of competition between independent parties, game theory assists in determining the ideal conclusion from a set of options by analyzing the costs and advantages to each independent party as they compete with one another. As a result, one party suffers a loss while the other gains victory. If both players make smart decisions in their movements, they will eventually win the game of chess and the other will lose it (Hollander et al., 2006).
In industries to Maximize on Competitive Strategy.
A maximin approach requires a corporation to identify the worst-case scenario for each choice and then pick the one with the highest reward among the worst-case scenarios. If Firm A selects, the worst payoff would occur if Firm B picks; but, if Firm B chooses, A’s payoff would be smaller. If Firm A picks the worst-case scenario for a payout, the A’s payoff will be less than that of Firm B. As a result, A opts for a bigger payoff when using a maximin method. If Firm B picks the worst payout, the payoff will be the lowest. If Firm A chooses the lowest payoff, the payoff will be the highest. If Firm B chooses the worst reward, the same thing will happen if Firm A selects the worst payoff. As a result, B opts for A with a bigger payoff when using a maximin approach. Thus, both A and B generate a high-quality system when maximin is used (Hollander et al., 2006).
Contrasting Animal Behavior Strategies.
Game theory models may be used to investigate foraging, predator-prey relationships, communications, parent-offspring interrelations, and sibling relationships. The prisoner’s dilemma is a classic example of this.
Without group advantages, cooperative conduct is another difficult subject to characterize. Researchers have been able to evaluate the fitness benefits of reciprocal cooperation using the prisoner’s dilemma game. The results of a computer tournament demonstrate how cooperation may flourish in an asocial setting, thrive while engaging with a diverse array of techniques, and resist invasion once fully entrenched (Mandal and Baran., 2015).
References:
De Smedt, T. (2013). Modeling Creativity: Case Studies in Python. University Press Antwerp. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bp7KwpmFBzoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=An+evolutionary+stable+strategy+(ESS)+is+a+technique+(or+group+of+strategies)+that+is+impermeable+once+adopted+by+a+population+in+response+to+a+particular+environment,+that+is,+it+cannot+be+displaced+by+a+novel+or+initially+uncommon+approach+(or+set+of+str&ots=bkUNE-ihMg&sig=NYlkISXPbY4IKvpqO5CoFOtHPNg
Rangil, T. T. (2011). Conflict as a “Normal Economic Activity”: The Contribution of Jack Hirshleifer, 1925–2005. History of Political Economy, 43(4), 625-648. Retrieved from: https://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-abstract/43/4/625/12451
Hollander, Y., & Prashker, J. N. (2006). The applicability of non-cooperative game theory in transport analysis. Transportation, 33(5), 481-496. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-006-0009-1
Mandal, F. B. (2015). Textbook of animal behaviour. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vIWQCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Game+theory+models+may+be+used+to+investigate+foraging,+predator-prey+relationships,+communications,+parent-offspring+interrelations,+and+sibling+relationships.+The+prisoner%27s+dilemma+is+a+classic+example+of+this&ots=0ZHoUyRSxt&sig=_-470MIqIyc-WqNZYrI4uSKBgwk
What is the Winner Effect in Animal Fights?
The winner and loser effect is an aggressive behavior phenomenon in which the winner effect refers to an animal’s increased probability of winning future aggressive interactions following previous victories, whereas the loser effect refers to an animal’s increased probability of losing future aggressive interactions following previous losses (Schwartzer et al., 2013).
Describe examples from the Literature of two Studies that have Found Evidence for a Winner Effect.
Blue-footed bobby chicks
According to Drummond (1993), blue-footed booby two-chick broods often demonstrate consistent dominance-subordination, with the older (first-hatched) chick being regularly aggressive and the younger chick being habitually submissive (Drummond, 1993).
Fallow deer, third-party intervention behaviors
During the breeding season, male ungulates engage in a fierce battle for access to females. There are times when third-party men intervene in conflicts, disrupting the dyadic level of confrontations. The concept asserts that a person’s chances of winning a subsequent contest rise when he or she successfully defeats an opponent: the “winner effect.” Because third-party intervention behavior is likely to occur, the intervener will not be at risk of becoming a threat to the other members of the competitive duo (Jennings et al., 2009).
Devise your Experiment to test for the Winner Effect in a Taxon of your choice.
We will test the winner effect in the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae). This is aimed at understanding the male-territorial contest.
Method:
Here, we are going to observe the olive fruit fly and know what the behaviors are when they lose or when they win. It is generally agreed that changes in behavior during a conflict that are related to earlier experiences may be divided into two types. Losing contests has been shown to decrease willingness to participate in a contest, whilst winning contests has been shown to increase the desire to participate in a contest (i.e. the winner effect).
Therefore, individuals who have previously won tend to raise their levels of aggressiveness and battle for longer periods in subsequent competitions, whereas losers prefer to avoid such fights and display less hostility. Some have suggested that the winner and loser effects might arise as a consequence of players’ reevaluation of their perceived fighting ability during the competition.
This will lead us to conclude how the fireflies are affected by the winning effect. We will look at male-male fights, isolation, and interwar intervals.
References:
Schwartzer, J. J., Ricci, L. A., & Melloni Jr, R. H. (2013). Prior fighting experience increases aggression in Syrian hamsters: implications for a role of dopamine in the winner effect. Aggressive behavior, 39(4), 290-300. Retrieved from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ab.21476
Drummond, H. (1993). Have avian parents lost control of offspring aggression. Etología, 3, 187-198. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugh-Drummond/publication/221962521_Have_avian_parents_lost_control_of_offspring_aggression/links/54f749300cf28d6dec9e6816/Have-avian-parents-lost-control-of-offspring-aggression.pdf
Jennings, D. J., Carlin, C. M., & Gammell, M. P. (2009). A winner effect supports third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer, Dama dama, fights. Animal Behaviour, 77(2), 343-348. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347208004995
Hypothesis:
The American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) drop nuts with harder shells from greater heights, and the height keeps decreasing when dropping the same nut repeatedly.
How to test the theory:
To establish whether our theory is correct, we must drop a large number of walnut nuts into the path of a crow. These nuts (about 20 in number) will be dropped from various heights to determine the best height at which the walnut will have a hole large enough for the crow to swallow the contents.
To evaluate the hardness of each walnut, we would first need to establish its size. This operation will be repeated at several heights ranging from roughly 1.55m to 3.1m, 6.2m to 9.3m, and a combination of these heights. It will be necessary to repeat each process until the nut has been sufficiently shattered to allow a crow to devour it. This will be read as a hole with a diameter of 1.5cm.
It is necessary to compare the height of the nut and the average number of drops required to properly crush it after establishing the average number of drops required to safely crush a nut. To do this, it is necessary to compare locally and determine the height at which the crow must fly to shatter the nut. This will be compared and contrasted between the two different nut species.
The alternative way is to search the internet to see if any research has been done on the height necessary for a crow to crack the same nuts as you are trying to break. We may now compare the findings and draw their conclusions (Cristol et al., 1999).
What do you think Might Change the Drop Height if other Crows are Present During Drops?
Crows will decrease the drop height because of kleptoparasitism. To reduce the likelihood of prey loss as a result of kleptoparasitism by other crows, crows should lower their drop height when there is a higher possibility of kleptoparasitism occurring (Cristol et al., 1999).
References:
Cristol, D. A., & Switzer, P. V. (1999). Avian prey-dropping behavior. II. American crows and walnuts. Behavioral Ecology, 10(3), 220-226. Retrieved from: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article-abstract/10/3/220/201460
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download