Animal Behavior

.. cle. Although, there were no consistent intervals between breaks, they did range between five and l0 minutes apart. Furthermore, every time the trout moved, it always returned to the same position it left from. Conveniently, the trout may have used the three stones at the base of it’s schooling position as a marker Also, the school showed something that resembled a hierarchy of order.

It appeared that the larger fished floated toward the bottom, while the smaller fished floated at the top. During the observation period, the fish dispersed in a rapid manner on three occasions. On the first random dispersement, no significant signal was apparent. However during the second rapid dispersion! , I noticed that the smaller fish used their tails to suspend themselves to maintain swimming. But, the larger fish at the bottom seemed to use their front fins more actively to suspend themselves and barely moved their tails.

During the second dispersion, an observation was made that one smaller fish made an aggressive and sudden movement toward a surface object and thereby, disturbing the motion of the water. Upon the movement of that fish, the rest of the school followed in fashion toward that general location. But after that sudden movement, the golden trout under observation returned to the same location it left from with almost accurate precision and distance from the three-stone marker at the base of its location. What seems significant during the observation was that the golden trout barely opened its mouth while in rheotactic motion. Yet, when it made it slow and circular pattern outside the current, it’s gills and mouths were actively intaking water.

The three other observations at the aquarium didn’t produce any significant observations. Except the Black footed penguin. Upon the l5 minute observation period, a pair of penguins appeared to be copulating reproductively within their nest. At 3:00 p.m., during their feeding period. The copulating pair didn’t eat any of the food. Instead, they stayed in their nest, while the others did eat.

However, another observation was noticed, it appeared that the penguins that were not in their nest ate the most. While those that were in their nest barely ate at all. Results (Penguins/San Francisco Zoo field trip) Unlike the San Francisco Steinhart Aquarium, the penguins at the San Francisco Zoo where on an island in the open environment. Furthermore they were Magellanic penguins, and these penguins are more of a cold weather species of penguin. But what was significant was that, they used a great deal of vocal noises.

Also, they tended to move in pairs of two similar to their Black footed penguin counterparts. Inasmuch, as no eggs were noticed, observations did reflect that certain penguins barely moved. These penguins tended to be a bit larger than the other penguins. In addition, whenever a pair did move, the larger one lead, the way and the smaller one followed. If, I were to speculate upon the sex, I would speculate, that the larger species of penguins were males for two reasons, (1) observations were noticed, that the larger one for the most part stayed outside the nest, and when other penguins came to close the large penguin would demonstrate territorial aggression by! making an agonistic gesture with it’s beak at the apparent intruder.

(2) At the San Francisco Aquarium, the penguins that were copulating were almost undistingushable from my naked eye, except their size and the manner of hair on their upper limbs. The larger penguins had hairy upper limbs, and the ones inside the nest had almost smooth upper limbs. During the one hour observation period, most all of the penguins tended to respect each others territory. The exception was with the smaller penguins. They tended to be on the more playful by nature. Spending a healthy portion of time swimming in the water and moving about in almost a child like manner.

As for the observations of the Bengal tiger, it was about 1:00 in the afternoon, both tigers were asleep under a tree in their outdoor observation environment. As for the grizzle bear, it spent almost ten minute staring at the wall with its back faced towards the public, and as for the Flamingos, it was about 4:00 p.m., they for the most part were perched upon one leg, and resting in various positions. What was interesting was that, observations were noticed that they could place their heads under the wings. Other than that, the Flamingos were inactive during the l5 minute period because, the flock was more or less asleep. Discussion (marine plankton) Environmental factors that certainly influence the behavioral tendency of marine plankton are the currents of the water, salinity, temperature and light.

The primary factor that influences the behavior of phytoplankton is the necessity for radiant light for photosynthesis. Several physiological factors influence zooplankton. The first one being, which the phytoplankton is a source of food. Thus, phytoplankton is inherently more abundant in warmer water because, the sunlight is effecting the environment. But what is more important for phytoplankton is not the temperature, but the access to a greater amount of sunlight.

The second major factor of environmental influence is that, since marine plankton are more or less a free- floating buoyant life form, it’s primary method of horizontal locomotion would be largely dictated by the motions of the currents and the salinity of the water. However, certain types of marine plankton such as brine shrimp have demonstrated that,! they posses the ability to exercise vertical locomotion pending environmental stimuli. As noted before, in the results paragraph on brine shrimp at the San Francisco Exploritorium, mature brine shrimp swim away from the direction of light, but the younger ones swim towards the light. Anatomically, crustaceans have compound eyes. This particular type of eye is far more sensitive to radiant energy.

Furthermore, a compound eye interprets optical stimuli at a much faster rate than the single eye of human being for example, but, it doesn’t focus as distinctly as a human’s eye. Thus I speculate, that younger brine shrimp swims toward the light because, the optical stimuli of light initiates an involuntarily primitive motor response compounded by a neural system connected by a continuous nerve fiber stretched from eye to tail. Only through maturity, does the brine shrimp innately learns how to control this mechanism of behavioral taxis. Although, the Advantages of being in ! the light promote an easier access to phytoplankton, it also, promote the vulnerability of also becoming a more visible source of food for other predatory species. Therefore, the ultimate cause of the behavioral tendency of photonegitive vertical migration enhances evolutionary fitness by concealing the location of the mature brine shrimp in darker waters. Whereas, the proximate mechanism is it’s innate anatomical structure of it’s nervous system and compound eye.

In addition to this assertion, the experiment conducted on mud shrimp also promotes the proximate cause hypothesis that shrimp do not have an acute sensory receptor for temperature, but are physiologically stimulated too light. Discussion (animal behavior lab) From clinical observations, several noticeable behavior seemed reasonable clearly. For instance, when the guinea pigs tasted the acetic acid, I speculate this behavioral reaction is associated to the remote fact that guinea pigs eat roots and various forms of vegetation. Many of which, resemble a more sour taste than sweet, and since acetic acid may smell like vinegar, it characteristically is sour. Thus, is familiar to rodent type creatures.

However, other animals such as the earthworm and snail were diametrically reactive to the acetic acid. I speculate that, this behavioral reaction is associated to the fact that acetic acid is an acid. Thus, it posses the characteristic to damage tissue. Therefore, because both the earthworm and snail have such delicate outer surfaces, they must physiologically repel from anything that can damage its exterior tissue. As far as behavioral tendencies toward tactile surfaces, what was interesting was that guinea pigs have claws, an! d the earthworm’s exterior surface is also its respiratory surface.

Thus, I speculate that these animals didn’t move because, their sensory receptors located at their tactile surfaces communicated to their brains the potential danger of the situation to their surface anatomy. Thus, the proximate cause of the behavior was not to move. However, the most dramatic behavioral observation was with the earthworm. When the earthworm was placed into an arid environment, it would move toward a direction that provided a damp and moist environment. Yet, the proximate cause of this behavior was because, the exterior skin of an earthworm is also its respiratory surface.

This is a main component of it’s breathing apparatus, and although, the earthworm may be accustomed to a moist and damp environment like the underground surface of the earth, it doesn’t cognitively prefer the dark protection and security of the soil from the open and exposed surface of the lab pan, but instead, it’s se! nsory receptors are sensing a reduction of cellular respiration due to desiccation, and the immediate motor response is to peristaltically move to a moist and damp environment to resusicate the respiratory surface to a proper medium for adequate breathing and continued survival. In addition, it was speculating that, an earthworm could feel moisture in the air. So to test the kinetic behavioral characteristics of the earthworm, the environmental conditions prohibited this feature by artificially heating up the experimental atmosphere with a heating lamp. Then by initially pointing it’s head toward the dry hot sand, and finally, by placing a glass barrier in front of the moist soil. From these experiments, I concluded that, an earthworm will move in a random kinetic fashion to find a suitable moist and damp environment for simplicity of survival.

Discussion (San Francisco Aquarium field trip) The compounded rheotactic behavior tendency of the Golden trout camouflages to a large extent the paramount purposes of this observable trait. Since swimming against a current requires a substantial amount of greater energy than swimming with the current, there must be some innate purpose for this enormous expenditure of additional energy. Initially, the behavioral action of rheotactic swimming is an independent genetic characteristic. However, ultimate cause is predicated upon two major words. The first word begins innate, and second word is genetic. These two words contribute to the concept of evolutionary fitness. Hence, analytical reasoning had to be applied with this particular behavior.

First, given the proposition that, the behavior of swimming against a current was not within itself an enclosed action, then it must be a precipitory action leading to an ultimate purpose. Second, upon close observation, it was noticed that, the trout’s operculum was engaged in ! what appeared to be exaggerated ventilation. So I concluded that, the mechanical uptake of water was not exclusively for aquatic respiration, which the action within itself, provided the inflow of greater amounts of water. Now for the third and most speculative point, if the necessity for water uptake was not for the sole benefits of breathing or osmoregulation, then the sublime purpose must be for the benefit of the ingesting whatever must be in the water. By that combining these three points, and through the knowledge that, trouts use their chemoreceptors for the migratory purpose of reproduction, I deductively concluded that the behavioral purpose of swimming upstream against a current was a mechanism for directional navigation using the lateral line system, and the purpose of intermittent pauses with exaggerated respiratory behavior was for the benefit of olfactory orientation. Therefore, the proximate cause of rheotactic behavior involves the coordinated use of the la! teral line system, respiratory systems and nervous system of smell and cognitive memory. Discussion (San Francisco Zoo field trip) The mating behavior of penguins posses some really interesting socio-behavior facets.

For instance, although no eggs were exposing too plain view, it was apparently clear, which penguins share in the responsibilities of incubating their eggs within the nest of their rookery. Another fascinating feature about penguin behavior was that the smaller penguins/young were totally void from anything that resembled the more mature penguin mating behavior. This facet of youth behavior signifies that, these young offspring don’t mature into physically reproductive penguins unlike other birds into in a short period of time. In addition, since the behavior of playing is a form of learning, two things immediately standout: (1) That these young penguins lack the immediate ability to fully integrate into an adult penguin society, because the behavior of playing is a characteristic of slower maturing animals. (2) Given that penguins have the ability to use vocal noises to communicate, i! t also means, that they are a more developed species of social animal.

As such, requires a greater amount of time to physically and socially mature into the complex matrix of mature penguin life. However, these physiological characteristic’s signifies that, evolutionary fitness has forced them to physically mature at a slower rate. These physiological phenomena associated to a slower anatomical development are why, I speculate that penguins go through a far more systematically complex development process to prepare for mating than other animals. Therefore, this partially accounts for the ability too fast during mating season, gains a credible amount of body weight, learns how use their ability to communicate and mature as far as, they innately perform behaviorally observable tendencies such as agonistical and territorial behavior. Conclusion For the most part, animal behavior is not a randomly exercised action. Creatures despite size, order in the food chain, anatomical complexity or cognitive capacity all are dependent upon the relationship of their physical structure and how it integrates with their environment.

Phytoplankton is mutually dependent upon the environmental conditions of sunlight, and zooplankton are bio-taxis responsively too light based upon the level of their maturity. An earthworm’s kinetic behavior under environmentally hostile conditions is predictable, because of its physiological survival mechanism.