DOCSLIB.ORG

Behavioral Ecology BIO417 -- Fall 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Behavioral Ecology BIO417 -- Fall 2013 Behavioral Ecology BIO417 -- Fall 2013 Instructor: Dr. Susan Lewis Class: 8-9:50 T,Th Office: 110 Rankin Lab: 12 - 3:50 p.m. Thursday Phone: 524-7279 Office Hours: by appointment E-mail: [email protected] (preferred) Course Description and Goals: This course is concerned with the functions of animal behavior -- in what ways (if any) is a particular behavior adaptive and how did it evolve? We will focus primarily on social behavior of non-human, vertebrate animals. Through a combination of lecture, laboratories, discussions, and other activities, my goal is that you become aware of both the diversity of animal social behaviors and the methods scientists use to understand them. Course Objectives: At the conclusion of this course, you should be able to: 1. Understand and give examples of the role that evolution plays in shaping animal behavior and the levels at which selection operates Assessment: Class discussions, Assignments, Exams 2. Use language of behavioral ecologist with precision and accuracy. Assessment: Class discussions, Exams 3. Explain potential sources of conflict as well as of cooperation in interactions such as those between males and females, parents and offspring, and members of the same social group Assessment: Class discussions, Assignments, Exams 4. Hypothesize, with appropriate empirical support, how various environmental parameters would be expected to impact the behavior of an animal species Assessment: Class discussions, Assignments, Exams 5. Critically analyze and discuss an article from the primary literature in animal behavior Assessment: Class discussions, Research project proposal, Final paper 6. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of various behavioral research methods and demonstrate the ability to select an appropriate methodology for a particular situation. Assessment: Discussions, Exams, Research project proposal 7. Design and carry out a research project in animal behavior, including identifying the research question, constructing an ethogram, selecting the proper sampling technique, analyzing data, making connections to previous research, and presenting results Assessment: Assignments, Research project proposal, Poster, Final paper Expectations: This is an upper-level, seminar course. You are expected to participate actively in class discussions and to prevent me from monopolizing class with my lectures! You need to read and understand the material assigned for each class. The book is fun (if you’re a geek, so most of you will like it). When we read articles, plan to read them at least 3 times. Late assignments will have 5% of the score deducted for each day they are late. Labs may involve work outdoors. You should come to class prepared to be outside, regardless of the weather. If you pick an outdoor exhibit animal, waterproof boots and a good raincoat will keep you more comfortable, or bring a dry pair of shoes to change into. A clipboard or lightweight but sturdy notebook will be useful in lab. Arriving on time to class will be especially important on days when we are going to the zoo -- if you come late, you are likely to miss the van. You will need to collect a minimum of 15 hours of data for your project per person (3 person project = 45 hours total). This does not include ethogram creation, pilot research, false starts (except in extenuating circumstances), travel to/from the zoo, time between sampling intervals, etc. If you use your time well in lab, you should be able to collect 2.5+ hours of data per person per day over 6 weeks, and we have a 7th week as a cushion. But if it takes you a while to get going, you may need to go to the zoo on your own time. Alternatively, you may design a project in which you choose to collect data outside of lab time, in which case you do not need to come to lab on Thursdays. Zoo admission and parking is free for research purposes. Do not abuse this privilege – we are one of the only colleges allowed this opportunity. Textbook: An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology by Davies, Krebs, and West. 2012 Measuring Behavior, edited by P. Martin and M. Bateson. 2007 (recommended) Evaluation: Final grades will be determined as follows: 91-100% = A 81-90% = B 71-80% = C 61-70% = D ≤60% = F The grade scale may be lowered at the discretion of the instructor. A/B and B/C grades may be given to students within 2% of the next higher grade, if performance supports that distinction. 'Incompletes' will not be given unless arranged with the instructor prior to the final day of class. There are currently 900 points possible in this course. They are distributed as follows: Laboratory Research Projects: 325 pts Proposal Draft 20 pts. Peer Review 10 pts. Final Proposal 40 pts. Lab Notebook 20 pts. First Draft of Paper 30 pts. Peer Review 10 pts. Final Paper 75 pts. Poster Draft 20 pts. Final Poster 75 pts. Poster Presentation 25 pts. Conceptual Exams: Three at 75 points each 225 pts. Unit Essays: Two at 50 points each 100 pts. Final Exam (Combination of third unit essays and additional questions, take home) 100 pts. Article Discussions: 105 pts. Quality of participation (based on grading rubric) and written summary : 15 pts x 7 Assignments (Details to be announced) 45 pts. Attendance Policy: Because our course involves a great deal of discussion, in which students learn from one another, students are expected to arrive promptly to class and attend class regularly. Following 3 course absences, a student’s grade will be lowered by 5% for each additional absence. Arriving more than 15 minutes late to class will count as a ½ day absence, more than 30 minutes late counts as absent. Mastery Policy: Students must have a passing average (>61%) on the exams for the class, and must have a passing average (>61%) on the final poster, poster presentation, and final research paper in order to receive a passing grade in the course. Article Discussions (7) Everyone is required to write a short (1 paragraph) summary of articles we are reading for discussion, as well as 1-2 questions the article got you thinking about. These will be handed in at the end of each discussion section. Summaries should be typed. Your grade on the discussions (15 points each) will be based on the extent to which you participate and the quality of your discussion. The Carroll University Academic Integrity Policy is located in your student handbook (found on- line). I encourage you to familiarize yourself with it. If a student violates this policy in any way, I reserve the right to impose a sanction of failure on the assignment/assessment or failure in the course. If you have questions about appropriate citations or about paraphrasing (see below), please ask. All violations of the policy will be reported to the Office of Academic Affairs. Honor Code for Take Home Essays/Examinations: During the semester you will complete two take home essay assignments and a take home final exam. I chose this style of exam because it gives you time to organize and compose your thoughts. My expectation is that each exam will be your own work -- you may not consult with anyone else (except me) about the questions on the exam once you receive it. You may use your class notes, your textbook, and occasionally other assigned articles, when writing your answers. However, you are advised to be extremely careful to avoid plagiarism (see below for more details). I know Davies, Krebs, and West understands the material -- I want to know if you do!! Your textbook is a resource -- not the source of the answers. That means: 1) do not copy phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc. of text directly from the textbook (or any other source) (no quotations); and 2) do not loosely paraphrase large passages of concepts or examples from the text. Use your own ideas and your own words. Citing work We will use APA citation style throughout the course. Cite all appropriate material and do not use direct quotes on any assignment, unless you have specific permission from me. Plagiarism is using someone else’s ideas or work and presenting it as your own ideas or work. Plagiarism – in any form – will not be tolerated in this course. For this course the sanction imposed by the instructor on a student who plagiarizes will be 0 points for the assignment for the first offense and automatic failure of the course for the second offense. If you copy more than three or four consecutive words from an author, then you are plagiarizing that author, even if you cite the source. To avoid plagiarizing an author, read the author’s writing, step away and reflect on the writing for several moments, and then paraphrase the author using your own words. After you reread your writing and the author’s writing, if there are more than a few words alike in a sentence, then you should find another way to convey the idea in your own words. ALWAYS cite sources of any idea that is not your own. For the purposes of this class, NEVER use direct quotes (with or without quotation marks). I am going to experiment with using turnitin.com this semester, not so much to monitor plagiarism (although I will use it for that) but to provide you with resources that will help improve your writing (there is now a built in grammar checker, for example). The information you need to submit your assignments using TurnItIn is included below. You will need to create an account first, and you are encouraged to do this early in the semester. On TurnItIn you need to know two things to create an account: • The class ID number: 6768118 • The enrollment password: BIO417 Policies and Fine Print (slightly modified from Bernier, 2004): The instructor and the College reserve the right to modify, amend, or change the syllabus (course requirements, grading policy, etc.) as the curriculum or program requires.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EXTRA-PAIR MATING and EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE in the SONG SPARROW (Melospiza Melodia)
    EXTRA-PAIR MATING AND EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE IN THE SONG SPARROW (Melospiza melodia) By Kathleen D. O'Connor B.A., Skidmore College, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY Department of Forest Sciences Centre for Applied Conservation Research We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2003 © Kathleen D. O'Connor, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Fpce_t Sciences The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 2HApc. 20O5 DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Effective population size is used widely in conservation research and management as an indicator of the genetic state of populations. However, estimates of effective population size for socially monogamous species can vary with the frequency of matings outside of the social pair. I investigated the effect of cryptic extra-pair fertilization on effective population size estimates using four years of demographic and genetic data from a resident population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia Oberholser 1899) on Mandarte Island, British Columbia, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Foraging : an Ecology Model of Consumer Behaviour?
    This is a repository copy of Foraging : an ecology model of consumer behaviour?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/122432/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Wells, VK orcid.org/0000-0003-1253-7297 (2012) Foraging : an ecology model of consumer behaviour? Marketing Theory. pp. 117-136. ISSN 1741-301X https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593112441562 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Foraging: an ecology model of consumer behavior? Victoria.K.Wells* Durham Business School, UK First Submission June 2010 Revision One December 2010 Revision Two August 2011 Accepted for Publication: September 2011 * Address for correspondence: Dr Victoria Wells (née James), Durham Business School, Durham University, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB & Queen’s Campus, University Boulevard, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, Telephone: +44 (0)191 334 0472, E-mail: [email protected] I would like to thank Tony Ellson for his guidance and Gordon Foxall for his helpful comments during the development and writing of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Mimicry - Ecology - Oxford Bibliographies 12/13/12 7:29 PM
    Mimicry - Ecology - Oxford Bibliographies 12/13/12 7:29 PM Mimicry David W. Kikuchi, David W. Pfennig Introduction Among nature’s most exquisite adaptations are examples in which natural selection has favored a species (the mimic) to resemble a second, often unrelated species (the model) because it confuses a third species (the receiver). For example, the individual members of a nontoxic species that happen to resemble a toxic species may dupe any predators by behaving as if they are also dangerous and should therefore be avoided. In this way, adaptive resemblances can evolve via natural selection. When this phenomenon—dubbed “mimicry”—was first outlined by Henry Walter Bates in the middle of the 19th century, its intuitive appeal was so great that Charles Darwin immediately seized upon it as one of the finest examples of evolution by means of natural selection. Even today, mimicry is often used as a prime example in textbooks and in the popular press as a superlative example of natural selection’s efficacy. Moreover, mimicry remains an active area of research, and studies of mimicry have helped illuminate such diverse topics as how novel, complex traits arise; how new species form; and how animals make complex decisions. General Overviews Since Henry Walter Bates first published his theories of mimicry in 1862 (see Bates 1862, cited under Historical Background), there have been periodic reviews of our knowledge in the subject area. Cott 1940 was mainly concerned with animal coloration. Subsequent reviews, such as Edmunds 1974 and Ruxton, et al. 2004, have focused on types of mimicry associated with defense from predators.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell Resource Partitioning As a Mechanism of Coexistence in Two Co‑Occurring Terrestrial Hermit Crab Species Sebastian Steibl and Christian Laforsch*
    Steibl and Laforsch BMC Ecol (2020) 20:1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0268-2 BMC Ecology RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Shell resource partitioning as a mechanism of coexistence in two co-occurring terrestrial hermit crab species Sebastian Steibl and Christian Laforsch* Abstract Background: Coexistence is enabled by ecological diferentiation of the co-occurring species. One possible mecha- nism thereby is resource partitioning, where each species utilizes a distinct subset of the most limited resource. This resource partitioning is difcult to investigate using empirical research in nature, as only few species are primarily limited by solely one resource, rather than a combination of multiple factors. One exception are the shell-dwelling hermit crabs, which are known to be limited under natural conditions and in suitable habitats primarily by the avail- ability of gastropod shells. In the present study, we used two co-occurring terrestrial hermit crab species, Coenobita rugosus and C. perlatus, to investigate how resource partitioning is realized in nature and whether it could be a driver of coexistence. Results: Field sampling of eleven separated hermit crab populations showed that the two co-occurring hermit crab species inhabit the same beach habitat but utilize a distinct subset of the shell resource. Preference experiments and principal component analysis of the shell morphometric data thereby revealed that the observed utilization patterns arise out of diferent intrinsic preferences towards two distinct shell shapes. While C. rugosus displayed a preference towards a short and globose shell morphology, C. perlatus showed preferences towards an elongated shell morphol- ogy with narrow aperture. Conclusion: The two terrestrial hermit crab species occur in the same habitat but have evolved diferent preferences towards distinct subsets of the limiting shell resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Relations Chapter 8 Behavioral Ecology
    Social Relations Chapter 8 Behavioral Ecology: Study of social relations. Studies interactions between organisms and the environment mediated by behavior 1 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Some differences between males and females…besides the obvious!!! • Females produce larger, more energetically costly gametes. • Males produce smaller, less energetically costly gametes. Female reproduction thought to be limited by resource access. Male reproduction limited by mate access. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NjnFBGW3Fmg&feature=related2 Hermaphrodites • Hermaphrodites Exhibit both male and female function. Most familiar example is plants. So, how do organisms choose their mate??? 3 Mate Choice • Sexual Selection Differences in reproductive rates among individuals as a result of differences in mating success. Intrasexual Selection: Individuals of one sex compete among themselves for mates. Intersexual Selection: Individuals of one sex consistently choose mates among members of opposite sex based on a particular trait. http://www.youtube.co m/watch? v=eYU4v_ZTRII 4 How much is too much??? • Darwin proposed that sexual selection would continue until balanced by other sources of natural selection • Given a choice, female guppies will mate with brightly colored males. However, brightly colored males attract predators. It’s a trade-off! 5 Class Activity!!! • In groups, using guys in a bar looking for dates example, come up with a scenario of sexual selection either going too far or succeeding!!! Be creative!!! 6 Sexual Selection in Plants??? Nonrandom Mating Found Among Wild Radish • Wild radish flowers have both male (stamens) and female (pistils) parts, but cannot self-pollinate. • Marshall found non-random mating in wild radish populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is Behavioural Ecology Going?
    Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.21 No.7 July 2006 Where is behavioural ecology going? Ian P.F. Owens Division of Biology and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, UK, SL5 7PY Since the 1990s, behavioural ecologists have largely wove together the theories developed over the preceding abandoned some traditional areas of interest, such as decade and championed a new empirical approach to optimal foraging, but many long-standing challenges investigating behaviour. The key element of this approach remain. Moreover, the core strengths of behavioural was the use of adaptation as the central conceptual ecology, including the use of simple adaptive models to framework, which gave behavioural ecologists a precise investigate complex biological phenomena, have now a priori expectation: behaviours should evolve to maxi- been applied to new puzzles outside behaviour. But this mise the fitness of the individuals showing strategy comes at a cost. Replication across studies is those behaviours. rare and there have been few tests of the underlying Krebs and Davies also stressed the importance of two genetic assumptions of adaptive models. Here, I attempt other principles [27]. The first was the need to quantify to identify the key outstanding questions in behavioural variation in behaviour accurately. Drawing attention to ecology and suggest that researchers must make the new quantitative work that was being performed in greater use of model organisms and evolutionary some areas of ethology [28,29], they showed how this genetics in order to make substantial progress on approach could be applied to a variety of behaviours.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology: Integrating Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Approaches
    Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology: Integrating Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Approaches. Edited by Lee Alan Dugatkin Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology: Integrating Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Approaches by Lee Alan Dugatkin Review by: Reviewed by Lawrence M Dill The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 77, No. 3 (September 2002), pp. 361-362 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345260 . Accessed: 10/12/2012 15:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Quarterly Review of Biology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.225 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 77, No. 3 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY September 2002 REVIEWS AND BRIEF NOTICES History, Philosophy & Ethics .....................307 Plant Sciences ......................................328 General Biology ....................................312 Animal
    [Show full text]
  • Social Foraging and the Behavioral Ecology of Intragroup Resource Transfers
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title Social foraging and the behavioral ecology of intragroup resource transfers Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5565r5zn Journal Evolutionary Anthropology, 5(2) ISSN 1060-1538 Author Winterhalder, B Publication Date 1996 DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1996)5:2<46::AID-EVAN4>3.0.CO;2-U Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California 46 Evolutionary Anthropology Social Foraging and the Behavioral Ecology of Intragrou p Resource Transfers BRUCE WINTERHALDER Two chimpanzees stalk, isolate, and kill a red colobus monkey. An attendant question: is sharing as practiced primatologist notes that parts of the prey are relinquished selectively to onlooking among modem foragers an early or scroungers (Fig. 1). A human forager returns to camp mid-afternoonwith a freshly late development in our prehistory? killed, medium-sized ungulate. Later in the day, an ethnographer observes that The models of behavioral ecology shared portions of the animal have found their way into the cooking pots of most or (boldface indicates a term defined in all of those in the small band. Examining a prehistoric scatter of food residues, an the Glossary) described here empha- ethnoarcheologist wonders when early hominids began to scrounge or share food, size the importance of intragroup re- and with what consequences for our evolution. All of these settings represent one source transfer among social problem: the analysis of intragroup resource transfers among social foragers. New foragers, but give them different and studies in the behavioral ecology of transfers show them to be more commonplace more diverse explanations than those in nature, more complicatedand variable, and more subject to comparativeanalysis just cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodent Foraging Is Affected by Indirect, but Not by Direct, Cues of Predation Risk
    Behavioral Ecology Vol. 15 No. 3: 433–437 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh031 Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk John L. Orrock,a Brent J. Danielson,a and R. Jory Brinkerhoffb aEcology and Evolutionary Biology Interdepartmental Graduate Program, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA, and bDepartment of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA We used foraging trays to determine whether oldfield mice, Peromyscus polionotus, altered foraging in response to direct cues of predation risk (urine of native and nonnative predators) and indirect cues of predation risk (foraging microhabitat, precipitation, and moon illumination). The proportion of seeds remaining in each tray (a measure of the giving-up density [GUD]) was used to measure risk perceived by mice. Mice did not alter their GUD when presented with cues of native predators (bobcats, Lynx rufus, and red foxes, Vulpes vulpes), recently introduced predators (coyotes, Canis latrans), nonnative predators (ocelots, Leopardus pardalis), a native herbivore (white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus), or a water control. Rather, GUD was related to microhabitat: rodents removed more seeds from foraging trays sheltered beneath vegetative cover compared with exposed trays outside of cover. Rodents also removed more seeds during nights with precipitation and when moon illumination was low. Our results suggest that P. polionotus used indirect cues rather than direct cues to assess risk of vertebrate predation. Indirect cues may be more reliable than are direct scent cues for estimating risk from multiple vertebrate predators that present the most risk in open environments. Key words: foraging, giving-up densities, Peromyscus polionotus; predator recognition; prey behavior; risk assessment; Savannah River Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Rana Clamitans and R. Catesbeiana) Susan Z
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut Graduate School 8-23-2013 Ecological and Behavioral Interactions Between Two Closely Related North American Frogs (Rana clamitans and R. catesbeiana) Susan Z. Herrick Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Herrick, Susan Z., "Ecological and Behavioral Interactions Between Two Closely Related North American Frogs (Rana clamitans and R. catesbeiana)" (2013). Doctoral Dissertations. 214. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/214 Ecological and Behavioral Interactions Between Two Closely Related North American frogs ( Rana clamitans and R. catesbeiana ) Susan Zator Herrick, PhD University of Connecticut, 2013 Abstract Resource partitioning within the ecological niche space in which there is a high level of overlap between species can alleviate the tendency toward competitive exclusion. When competitive ability is asymmetrical due to predation or other ecological factors, it may be more effective for the less competitive species to lessen direct competition by contracting their use of local resources. Species occurring in mixed assemblages may come into direct contact with each other throughout their respective breeding seasons. Where competition for breeding habitat and acoustic space exists, the level of interference is expected to vary widely, depending upon the ecological and breeding similarities between the species involved and the relative importance of the resource. In this study, I investigated the breeding season interspecific interactions of two species of ranid frog in eastern North America, the American bullfrog ( Rana catesbeiana ) and the green frog ( R. clamitans ). The ecological and behavioral similarities between these species combined with phylogenetic relatedness and comparable natural distributions make them an ideal system for studying interspecific dynamics related to their breeding ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Selection As Behavioral Adaptation to Systematic Risk
    Group Selection as Behavioral Adaptation to Systematic Risk Ruixun Zhang1, Thomas J. Brennan2, Andrew W. Lo3,4* 1 MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, 3 MIT Sloan School of Management, CSAIL, and EECS, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 4 AlphaSimplex Group, LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America Abstract Despite many compelling applications in economics, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology, group selection is still one of the most hotly contested ideas in evolutionary biology. Here we propose a simple evolutionary model of behavior and show that what appears to be group selection may, in fact, simply be the consequence of natural selection occurring in stochastic environments with reproductive risks that are correlated across individuals. Those individuals with highly correlated risks will appear to form ‘‘groups’’, even if their actions are, in fact, totally autonomous, mindless, and, prior to selection, uniformly randomly distributed in the population. This framework implies that a separate theory of group selection is not strictly necessary to explain observed phenomena such as altruism and cooperation. At the same time, it shows that the notion of group selection does captures a unique aspect of evolution—selection with correlated reproductive risk–that may be sufficiently widespread to warrant a separate term for the phenomenon. Citation: Zhang R, Brennan TJ, Lo AW (2014) Group Selection as Behavioral Adaptation to Systematic Risk. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110848. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0110848 Editor: Claude Wicker-Thomas, CNRS, France Received July 15, 2014; Accepted September 25, 2014; Published October 29, 2014 Copyright: ß 2014 Zhang et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Predation Risk on Group Size, Vigilance, and Foraging Behavior In
    Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published April 6, 2014 Behavioral The official journal of the ISBE Ecology International Society for Behavioral Ecology Behavioral Ecology (2014), 00(00), 1–12. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru050 Original Article Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African Downloaded from ungulate community a a b Scott Creel, Paul Schuette, and David Christianson http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/ aDepartment of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA and bSchool of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, Tucson, AZ 85745, USA Received 12 November 2013; revised 25 February 2014; accepted 2 March 2014. Predators alter prey dynamics by direct killing and through the costs of antipredator responses or risk effects. Antipredator behavior includes proactive responses to long-term variation in risk (e.g., grouping patterns) and reactive responses to short-term variation in at Libraries-Montana State University, Bozeman on April 14, 2014 risk (e.g., intense vigilance). In a 3-year field study, we measured variation in antipredator responses and the foraging costs of these responses for 5 ungulates (zebra, wildebeest, Grant’s gazelle, impala, and giraffe) that comprised more than 90% of the prey community available to the 2 locally dominant predators, lions and spotted hyenas. Using a model-selection approach, we examined how vigilance and group size responded to attributes of the predator, prey, and environment.
    [Show full text]