Adrita Imaan

Erina Nowshin Sarker

Jennifer Brown
Luen Hernandez
BIOL-21700-04
Friday- 1:30-4:20pm
Exp. 3: Antipredatory Behavior

Introduction:
One crucial task that most animals must face is avoidance of predators. Factors such as
energy gain from food consumption, energy expense in foraging for food affect an animals
fitness (contribution to future generations). A predator killing a prey means that the preys fitness
is reduced to zero, the cost of being killed is extremely high. Since fitness is an important
concern of ecology, and predation plays such an important role in affecting fitness, avoiding
predation is worth studying (Lima, 1990).
When animals leave their refuge, i.e., a safe place such as their home, to forage for food,
they are exposing themselves to the danger of being victim to predators. The further away they
go from their refuge, the lesser their chance of returning back safely if predators find them. There
is an opportunity cost in play here, because the animal would be safer if it didnt go too far from
the refuge, but it might not find sufficient food if it stays close to the refuge. All interpretations
of the way in which vigilance responds to changes in predation risk assume that animals feeding
in a non-vigilant state cannot detect approaching predators immediately (Bednekoff, 1999).
There is also considerable energy consumption in returning to the refuge fast enough when the
animal senses an approaching predator, which increases if the foraging site it farther away from
the refuge. Opportunity cost is lost if the animal stays in the refuge while detectable predators are
around and misses the chance of using the same time foraging or in other profitable activities. So
it is an important question to ask when should the prey flee once they detect presence of
predator nearby.
In this experiment, we will be studying the response of squirrels to approaching
predators in the parks within our university campus. For squirrels, we will assume that their
refuge will be a tree or bush close by. We will approach squirrels as the predator and measure

the distance from our vantage point to the squirrels initial position, as well as the distance from
that initial position to the refuge where it flees to when it senses us approaching.
We will seek to examine a relation between these two distances. Our assumptions include
that the maximum speed of the squirrel is lower than that of its predator (us). We will keep in
mind that the cost of fleeing to refuge and then returning to forage again increases with the
distance the squirrel is from its refuge, but also recognize that the risk of being killed increases
much faster and spontaneously than the energy cost at hand, which then seems comparatively
trivial. Considering the aforementioned points, we can hypothesize that further away the prey
(aka, a squirrel) is from its refuge, the further away from the approaching predator it must
be when it attempts to flee so that the margin of safety remains similar to when the prey is
closer to its refuge at time of predator approaching. The goal of our experiment and
manipulation of data will be to test this hypothesis (Nalam, 2015).
Methods:
To carry out this experiment, first our group chose squirrel as the animal to approach and
the area chosen, was the trails on campus. Once it was decided which animal and the location for
the experiment, we were provided with a measuring tape to measure the approaching distance
and distance to refuge for each separate squirrels and they were to be recorded in the data sheet.
Next, as per the instructions on the lab manual we practiced walking at a steady pace, so
that when we approach the squirrels it isnt scared away. The first squirrel when spotted, was
approached in a straight line, and at a steady pace. A marker was placed from the distance that
we began to approach the squirrel. One of us continued to walk towards the squirrel until it ran
to refuge in the shrubs. Another marker was placed from where the squirrel took off into refuge.
Thus both the expected distances were measured and recorded in the data sheet provided. The
same procedure was repeated for 20 different squirrels and every time we assured that the
possible variables that could affect the result were kept constant. To name a few the individuals
who approached the squirrels were same for all the 20 measurements in order to make sure the
steady pace of walking was same and also the marker was kept constant.
For analysis of the collected data we had to find the standard deviation, confidence
interval, and the p-value. Microsoft excel was used for carrying out the calculation and deduction
of correct values of the respective findings.
Results:
The main culmination of the results are presented in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1 depicts the recorded values for the each individual squirrel approached on the
trails in campus. The collected data in Table 1 were then used to find out the mean for the
recorded data under the column named Distance to Refuge which was found to be 14.6m.

Using 14.6m as our average the above average Approach Distance values were
categorized as Far from Refuge and below average as the Near from Refuge. Thus using the
formulas on excel sheet the corresponding standard deviation values were found to be 4.829 (3 s.
f). The confidence interval was deduced to be 2.116 (3 s. f) and finally a p-value of 0.005 (3 s. f).
Table 1: Escape Behavior Data Sheet for the Approached Squirrels
Individuals(number)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Approach Distance(m)
15
5.4
20.5
13
17.2
19.7
6.8
12.2
20
7
15.9
16.2
8
10.2
17.9
12.4
20.4
9.3
12.7
11.6

Distance to Refuge(m)
12.1
13
18.2
23.5
14.3
23.2
10.5
16.1
21
13.5
9.7
19.1
12.3
3.5
21
9.2
16.7
13.5
16.9
16.7

Table 2: Far and Near Approach Distances from Refuge

Far from Refuge(m)

Near from Refuge(m)

20.5

15

13

5.4

19.7

17

12.2

6.8

20

Standard Deviation

4.82901319

16.2

15.9

Confidence Interval

2.11636946

20.4

p-Value

0.00448501

12.7

10.2

11.6

12.4

17.9

9.3

Discussion:
From our collected data its easy to see that there is a difference in the approach distance
to the squirrel and when it decides to flee. The average far approach distance was 16.4m
compared to the near approach distance which was 10.7m. We took a far approach to be
greater than 15m and a near approach below 15m. The mean of our two groups do appear to be
different. There is also a statistically significant difference between the two groups, which we
found by calculating a p-value. Our p-value, which was .004, was below our alpha level of .05,
meaning the means of the far and near approachs were significantly different. According to our
data there doesnt seem to be any other variables other than distance to refuge that might affect
the approach distance or other aspects of the escape behavior of the squirrel. The squirrel had a
significantly greater flight initiation distance when it was farther away from its refuge which
makes sense since the risk of it being captured increases with the distance from its refuge. So we
found that our hypothesis holds to be true that the further away a squirrel is from its refuge the
escaping response is initiated at a greater distance (approach distance) from the predator in order
to be on the safe side.

References
Nalam, V. BIOL 217 Lab Manual. Unpublished laboratory handout. Pages 30-44.
Lima, S. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1990, 68(4): 619-640, 10.1139/z90-092.

Sciencedirect.com. Back To The Basics Of Antipredatory Vigilance: Can Nonvigilant Animals

Detect Attack?. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.