Animal Behavior Biology lb Abstract Animal behavior is predictable. Their behavioral tendencies are influenced by the relationship of its anatomy to their environment. By observing various forms of life, and associating the mechanism of their abilities to perform a behavioral action, evolutionary influence thereafter, can be analyzed and deduced from that point. Introduction The science and study of animal behavior involve an enormous array of complicated factors. For instance, stereotyped responses are unlearned behavioral reactions to some environmental stimulus predicated upon an organism relationship to its physical environment and anatomy.
This obviously begs the question; is the observable behavior such as, the vertical movements demonstrated by brine shrimp (marine plankton experiment) or peristaltic movements showed by earthworms (animal behavioral lab experiment) a form of deliberate taxis or random kinesis? However, to properly be able to address those questions, it’s far more important to examine the intricate factors involving the complex interactions between the effects of environmental stimuli,(dry air for the earthworm and directional light for the brine shrimp) towards the affected anatomical structure and physiological function of a specific organ system of those particular animal species. Therefore, I hypothesize, that an ! earthworm will exert random kinetic behavior through peristaltic movement in an arid clinical environment because, it’s sensory apparatus (respiratory system) will detect a potential life/death situation precipitated by the threat of desiccation; whereas, the brine shrimp will demonstrate deliberate vertical movements of behavioral taxis because, the environmental stimuli of light will be effecting an entirely different sensory apparatus (ocular nervous ) ofwhich, doesn’t afford the potential possibility of impending doom. By that, affording the luxury of stereotypical behavior that can be later linked to environmental fitness. In short, an animal’s behavior about a particular type of movement is predicated upon the environmental clues, which directly influence the innate survival mechanisms of a species or its anatomical configuration with evolutionary fitness. However, inasmuch as some forms of animal behavior can be easily be analyzed by a simple stimulus and response scenario, such as with earthworms and brine shrimp.
Others such as the rheotactic behavior of trout (aquarium field trip) and penguin mating habits (zoo field trip) are far more complicated. These particular types of animal behavior involve a wider spectrum of coordinated organ systems. For instance, trouts are migratory fish and posses the additional physical characteristics of using chemorecptors (smell) too located their initial spawning grounds. Because of this evolutionary/genetic characteristic, they must swim against currents to be able to maximize their olfactory senses. Although the sense of smell is apart of the nervous system, the mechanism that coordinates rheotactic behavior is an entirely different nervous component. Trout like other fish use their mechanoreceptors located in their lateral line system to detect the movement and direction of water.! Which solicits the question, if trouts are rheotactic, then why do they need to intermediately break from the current and swim in a particular pattern? Therefore I hypothesize, which a trout’s general rheotactic behavior is predicating upon the coordinated environmental stimulus of an aqueous solute concentration, ofwhich will confirm olfactory distance, and the lateral line thereafter functions to facilitate in the correct direction.
Consequentially, rheotactic behavior controlled by the lateral line is dependent upon the chemoreptors of the olfactory senses of a trout. Thus, a trout’s intermittent behavior during rheotactic movement is more or less a pause for the benefit of olfactory orientation. Penguins unlike trout, brine shrimp and earthworms are flightless birds. Because of their physical size, they inherently have a larger cerebral capacity. This anatomical characteristic complicates the qualitative analysis of penguin mating behavior tremendously.
Largely because, penguins have the physical capacity of conscious thought, interactive communication immersed in a sheath of innate unlearned behavior. However, penguins are similar to trout in that, they to are migratory creatures. Thus, penguins like trout integrate a number of different physiological systems for mating behavior. One of which involves the coordinated interaction between their endocrine system and nervous system. Therefore I hypothesize, that male penguins during the mating season are territorially aggressive due to the imbalance of testosterone within their system, and female penguins are passive and somewhat behaviorally more submissive due to the higher amounts of estrogen within their sys! tems. Furthermore, because the endocrine system is such an incredible catalyst for a volatile explosion of metabolic energy, I anticipate that male penguin behavior during mating season will only be overtly exhibited for the purposes of reproductive behavior and territorial defense.
To conclude, animals regardless of species are physiologically dependent upon their specific anatomical construction. Certain simple behavioral responses are involuntary due to survival necessity, while others can be influence by environmental stimuli. But no matter, what the stimulus might have been that initiated a particular animal’s behavior, the overall motor behavioral reaction will be dictated by the specific animal’s evolutionary genetic configuration. This is the premise for ultimate cause and evolutionary fitness. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate proximate causes (physical mechanisms) that invoke observable and physical behavior in animals, which can be reproduced under isolated clinical condictions. Methods On March 5, during the afternoon between 1:00 p.m. thru 2:00 p.m., plankton samples where drawn from the Oakland Estuary.
Samples were procured from a dark area and a well-lighted area at the surface level, 2 feet and at 4 feet depth levels with a sweeping motion from left to right. With the use of a lowering line and thermometer equilibrated by keeping it in water for over one minute, temperatures were drawn at the various levels and at the different areas. Also a secci disc ofwhich was attached to a lowering line was used to calculate the various light levels of penetration at both lighted and dark areas. By lowering the secci disc until it was no longer visible, then raising it until it was again visible was the method used to calculate the light penetration. This was done twice. Furthermore, salinity was measured with a refractometer.
In addition, brine shrimp was observed at both the San Francisco Exploratorium and Steinhart Aquarium. At the San Francisco Explor! atorium, a light switch changed the direction of the light from superior to inferior lighting. Which displayed the behavioral patterns of brine shrimp. On March 10, a series of animal lab observations was conducted by students to observe the various behavioral patterns of different life organisms. On this particular date, four pairs of animals were tested for their olfactory reactions to acetic acid and vanilla, tactile response to sandpaper, glass and loose soil inside a rectangular pan, light generated by a lighter, and in a dark environment. The pairs of animals chosen for observation were two guinea pigs, two mud shrimps, two earthworms and two garden snails. In addition, a supplemental experiment was conducted later to observe the kinetic behavior of an earthworm by using a rectangular pan with dry sand and damp loose soil at polar extremes overheaded by an intensive heat lamp to generate a thermal atmosphere.
On March 3l, a field trip was taken to San Francisco’s Steinhart’s Aquarium. The purpose of the field trip was to make timed and observational recordings of four various animals. Three to be recorded for only 15 minutes, and one at one hour. Ten types of behavioral categories were used to document behavior. They were ingestive, shelter seeking, agonistic, sexual, care giving, care soliciting, eliminative, investigative, allominetic, resting and other. The animals selected for observations were the moral eel, hooker shark, golden trout and Black footed penguins.
The animal chosen for an hour observation was the Golden trout On April 4, another field trip was taken for the San Francisco Zoo. The conditions of observation were identical to the San Francisco Steinhart Aquarium field trip. However, the animals chosen for observation were the Magellanic penguins, grizzly bear, Bengal tigers, and Flamingos. Results (brine shrimp/marine plankton experiment) Inasmuch as my hypothesis was based upon a particular type of plankton, the prejudice of my thought was because, I only associated plankton too crustacean like organisms, such as krill and brine shrimp. However, after the use of a microscope and various slides of different samples from both lighted and dark areas. As well as the three depth levels, numerous diatoms were observed.
These are known as phytoplankton or the “grass” of the sea. The other types of animate plankton are known as zooplankton. The vertical variation of various plankton can be contributed to certain physical factors such as, light and temperature (recorded at Fahrenheit). Apparently, more organisms of various kinds of plankton were recorded in the lighted area. At surface level, the temperature was 52 degrees, four roifers (wheel animals), five barnacle nauplius and a mollusk larva were observed by seven slides.
At 2 feet, eight diatoms, a barnacle larva and a polchacte worm was recorded. The t! emperature at the 2-foot level was at 51.9 degrees, and observations were based upon seven slides. At 4 feet, the temperature was at 52 degrees, three rotifers, 11 diatoms, a barnacle nauplius and other not named organisms were in this level. Five slides accumulated for the total amount of creatures at this depth. The light penetration for the lighted area was at 3 feet and 4 inches and the salinity was at 15%.
In the dark area, the light penetration was at 3 feet, and the salinity was recorded at 17%. At the surface level, three diatoms, a rotifer and barnacle worm was recorded by five slides. The temperature was 53.6 degrees. At the 2-foot level the temperature was at 5l.8 degrees and from six slides three diatoms, a rotifer, copepod and polychaete worm was recorded. At the 4-foot level, the temperature was at 5l.35 degrees, eight slides confirmed the presence of a copepod, marine worm and various string type diatoms.
Thus, from these results, estuary plankton has the behavioral tendency to populate the area between the bottom of the light penetration level recorded at approximately 3 feet in the greatest abundance. Whereas the classroom experiment was an excellent medium to evaluate the relationship between the vertical variations of plankton in relationship to depth. The San Francisco Exploritorium was a profound influence to the behavioral nature of brine shrimp too light. The experimental conditions at the Exploritorium proved that brine shrimp at a mature stage will swim away from the light by using a method of locomotion known as, vertical migration. However, in contrast to adult brine shrimp, the younger brine shrimp swam toward the light. Surprisingly enough, the behavior characteristics of brine shrimp at the San Francisco Exploritorium, and the behavioral tendency of zooplankton at the Oakland Estuary shared remarkable similarities in that them, both tend to populate at the border of the dark end of the light penetration level of their aqueous environments.
Results (Earthworm/animal behavioral lab experiment) When both the guinea pigs were given the opportunity to smell the acetic acid, both went one step further and actually tasted the end of the dropper containing the acetic acid. However, neither guinea pig was responsive to the vanilla. On sand paper, the pair of guinea pigs wouldn’t move and stood in place. When put into the glass and loose sand pan, both guinea pigs moved from the glass toward the sand. When the guinea pigs were exposed to the flame of the lighter, they responded by moving away. Finally, when both guinea pigs were put into a dark box with only one small opening, neither guinea pig left the box.
Furthermore, both guinea pigs huddled next to each other. Exhibiting what appeared to be a more relaxed state of being. In contrast, to the others guinea pigs exposed to open and more active environmental elements in a wire cage, such as more sounds and various optical stimuli. When both the mud shrimp were exposed to the acetic acid, both moved to another direction. But neither mud shrimp exhibited any significant response to the vanilla. When the pairs of mud shrimp were place on the sand paper, they didn’t move at all.
However, when put onto the glass and loose sand, they were actively moving. But when tested to the flame of the lighter, both moved toward the flame. One even went into the flame, and when place into a dark space they moved actively. The pair of earthworms both responded somewhat convulsively toward the acetic acid. But they seem to gravitate toward the vanilla.
The earthworms didn’t move very actively on the sandpaper, but were actively moving from the glass to rest in the loose sand. When the earthworms were exposed to the flame of the lighter they, both moved away from the flame. Finally, when the earthworms were tested in a dark environment, they eventually stop moving. The snails repelled from both the acetic acid and vanilla. Neither snail was inhibited from moving on the sandpaper nor glass.
But when exposed to the flame, both moved with a more rapid action, than seen in other experiments. In the earthworm experiment conducted under the heatlamp. The earthworm was active upon moving toward a polar extreme. But when the worm contacted the sand it reversed it’s direction, until it reached the moist earth soil at the other polar extreme. To verify the earthworm’s preference to moist soil, their heads were pointed to the direction of the loose earth and upon reaching it, they stopped and began to burrow in it.
Results (Golden trout/San Francisco Aquarium field trip) Coincidentally, the stream of water flushing into the tank (creating a current) was at the observation window of the trout tank. The golden trout, chosen for observation was relatively large. In a one hour period, the trout occasionally moved from it’s schooling position to make a cir …