W12_Demo_1

W12_Demo_1 - The Scientific Method, Research Tools, and...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The Scientific Method, Research Tools, and Techniques: Using the Library DEMO 1 Objectives In
this
demo
section
you
will
learn:

 • • • • • • how to utilize the scientific method; how to make observations and collect data; how to test an hypothesis using simple statistics; how to use different research tools provided by the library; how to research various scientific topics effectively; to question the reliability of your information sources. Welcome
to
Life
Sciences
1!
In
this
class,
we
will
explore
various
aspects
of
biology
focusing
 particularly
on
evolution,
ecology,
and
biodiversity.
The
demonstration
portion
of
the
lab
is
 designed
to
illustrate
some
of
the
important
concepts
from
lecture.
It
is
also
your
chance
to
 explore
some
aspects
of
biology
in
further
depth
through
in‐class
exercises
and
observation
 of
living
and
preserved
organisms.
Many
of
you
will
see
organisms
you
have
never
seen
 before.
Hopefully,
all
of
you
will
learn
much
more
about
biology.
Above
all,
be
enthusiastic
 and
have
fun!

 Scientific
Method

 Modern
science
began
during
the
Age
of
Enlightenment
which
swept
through
Europe
in
the
late
 th
 th
 16 and
early
17 centuries.
Although
science
itself
was
performed
in
all
parts
of
the
world
and
 in
various
manners
long
before
then,
the
philosophical
advancements
that
were
brought
about
 in
the
Age
of
Enlightenment
codified
a
logically
sound
methodology
that
is
the
basis
for
all
 modern
scientific
knowledge.
The
methodology,
naturally,
is
referred
to
as
the
scientific
 method.

 The
scientific
method
is
a
process
that
starts
with
careful
observation
of
the
natural
world.
 From
these
observations,
a
hypothesis
is
formulated
to
explain
the
observation.
The
 hypothesis
is
used
to
make
predictions,
and
these
are
tested
through
experimentation.
The
 experimental
results
are
then
interpreted
to
either
support
or
reject
the
hypothesis.
This
 process
repeats,
until
the
hypothesis
is
either
highly
supported
or
rejected.

 
 The
scientific
method
is
based
on
deductive
reasoning
championed
by
Francis
Bacon
(1561‐ 1626),
a
philosopher
and
scientist
from
the
Age
of
Enlightenment.
Deduction
is
a
 philosophical
process
in
which
you
can
conclude
that
something
is
true
because
it
is
a
logical
 extension
of
other
things
you
know
to
be
true.
For
instance,
because
you
know
that
there
are
 two
sides
to
a
coin,
you
can
deduce
that
the
odds
of
attaining
a
head
is
50%.
Induction,
on
the
 other
hand,
is
a
form
of
reasoning
in
which
multiple,
consistent
observations
yield
a
 conclusion.
In
our
coin
example,
if
you
were
to
flip
a
coin
10
times
and
attained
10
heads,
you
 might
inductively
conclude
that
a
flipped
coin
always
lands
on
heads.
A
conclusion
based
on
 inductive
reasoning,
however,
is
easily
negated:
a
single
tail
in
our
example
would
disprove
 our
conclusion.
Often
induction
is
used
to
develop
hypotheses,
because
hypothesis
 development
is
based
on
observations.
These
hypotheses
are
in
turn
tested
through
 experimentation
and
rejected
or
supported
through
deductive
reasoning.

 More
specifically,
the
scientific
method
employs
what
is
known
as
a
hypothetico‐deductive
 (or
hypothesis‐prediction)
approach.
In
this
logical
method,
a
specific
hypothesis
is
 formulated
to
explain
a
particular
phenomenon.
The
hypothesis
is
designed
to
make
 predictions
about
the
phenomenon
you
observed.
This
hypothesis
is
tested
with
an
 experiment
designed
to
permit
deduction
about
that
phenomenon.
The
experimental
results
 will
either
support
or
refute
your
hypothesis,
allowing
you
to
draw
conclusions
about
the
 truth
or
accuracy
of
your
hypothesis.
This
process
can
be
ongoing
ad
infinitum,
allowing
you
 to
learn
a
great
deal
about
a
single
phenomenon.

 The
formulation
of
a
good
hypothesis
is
an
important
part
of
the
scientific
method.
A
 hypothesis
must
give
a
testable
explanation
of
the
observations
you
have
made
of
a
particular
 phenomenon.
For
example,
perhaps
you
have
noticed
that
your
dog
is
fond
of
chasing
some
of
 your

 neighborhood
cats.
You
may
make
a
hypothesis
to
test,
for
example,
whether
your
dog
chases
 neighborhood
cats
more
than
out‐of‐town
cats,
black
cats
more
than
tabby
cats,
more
cats
in
 the
morning
than
in
the
afternoon,
etc.
All
of
these
can
be
tested
experimentally
and
will
 provide
information
about
your
dog
and
its
relationship
to
cats.
However,
it
is
important
to
 realize
that
there
are
hypotheses
that
cannot
be
tested,
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
scientific
 inquiry.
It
would
be
impossible
to
test,
for
example,
whether
your
dog
chases
cats
because
it
 hates
them
or
if
it
chases
cats
because
it
likes
them.

 It
is
much
easier
to
reject
a
hypothesis
than
it
is
to
accept
one.
Recall
our
discussion
on
 deductive
vs.
inductive
reasoning.
A
single
observation
that
disproves
a
hypothesis
nullifies
the
 validity
of
that
hypothesis,
whereas
multiple
observations
that
support
it
may
not
be
sufficient
 to
demonstrate
that
it
is
true.
You
might
hypothesize
that
all
crows
are
black,
because
every
 crow
you
have
ever
seen
has
been
all
black.
But
take
a
journey
to
Europe
and
you
will
observe
a
 crow
with
a
white
stripe
around
its
neck
and
shoulders.
Your
idea
that
all
crows
are
black
can
 be
nullified
with
a
single
observation
of
black‐and‐white
crow.

 This
is
why
it
is
common
in
the
scientific
method
to
try
to
deductively
refute
competing
 hypotheses
rather
than
gathering
inductive
support
for
your
hypothesis.
The
competing
 hypothesis
states
that
the
factor
you
are
testing
experimentally
has
no
effect.
For
example,
if
 you
hypothesize
that
birds
prefer
red
berries,
your
competing
hypothesis
should
be
that
berry
 color
has
no
effect.
This
competing
hypothesis
is
called
the
null
hypothesis,
and
very
often
 experiments
are
designed
to
reject
the
null.
By
rejecting
the
null
hypothesis,
you
are
in
fact
 supporting
your
own
hypothesis.
Say
you
were
to
hypothesize
that
drug
abuse
during
 pregnancy
causes
low
fetal
birth
weight.
It
would
be
easier
to
disprove
the
null
hypothesis:
that
 drug
abuse
during
pregnancy
has
no
effect
on
fetal
birth
weight.
You
could
then
experimentally
 sample
birth
weights
of
drug
abusers
and
non‐drug
abusers.
If,
based
on
your
experimental
 data,
you
were
able
to
reject
the
null
hypothesis
that
drug
abuse
has
no
effect
on
birth
weight,
 then
your
alternative
hypothesis
is
supported.
You
were
able
to
deductively
reject
the
null
 hypothesis
(no
effect).

 Formulate
a
hypothesis
regarding
some
animal
behavior
you
have
seen.
State
the

 null
hypothesis,
and
design
an
experiment
to
address
this
hypothesis.

 An
important
thing
to
remember
about
the
science
is
that
it
is
an
ongoing
enterprise,
where
 hypotheses
are
constantly
tested
and
retested.
The
field
of
scientific
knowledge
therefore
is
 always
changing
as
new
ideas
are
supported
and
old
ideas
are
rejected.
A
hypothesis
that
 withstands
a
high
degree
of
scrutiny
through
many
experiments
can
be
called
a
theory
–a
 hypothesis
that
has
withstood
a
great
deal
of
scrutiny
and
has
great
predictive
power
–
but
 even
theories
can
be
overthrown
with
a
single
observation.
In
1919,
for
example,
Einstein’s
 theory
of
relativity
disproved
the
physics
of
Isaac
Newton
that
had
robustly
explained
so
many
 natural
phenomena
regarding
the
movement
of
heavenly
objects
for
over
200
years.
Einstein’s
 hypothesis
was
that
space
and
time
were
curved,
whereas
in
Newtonian
physics
(the
kind
you
 learned
in
high
school),
space
was
flat
and
time
linear.
In
1919,
an
expedition
was
conducted
 by
the
British
Royal
Society
to
Brazil
and
the
island
of
Principe
off
the
western
coast
of
Africa
 to
observe
a
total
solar
eclipse.
Einstein’s
hypothesis
predicted
that
in
those
two
places,
 astronomers
would
be
able
to
observe
stars
that
were
located
directly
behind
the
sun
because
 the

 light
from
those
stars
would
curve
around
the
mass
of
the
sun.
The
Royal
Society
astronomers
 undertook
the
expedition
and
were
able
to
observe
light
from
the
stars
behind
the
sun.
That
 single
observation
was
sufficient
to
disprove
Newton’s
theory
of
physics.
Such
is
the
nature
of
 science:
nothing
can
ever
be
proven.
Even
the
most
robust
of
theories
must
be
revised
in
light
 of
new
evidence.
However,
this
is
also
the
strength
of
science.
It
is
not
dogmatic
in
its
beliefs;
it
 constantly
evolves
so
that
our
level
of
knowledge
only
improves
with
each
experiment
that
is
 performed.

 EXERCISE
I:
Observing
and
Quantifying
Behavioral
Sequences

 When
watching
an
animal,
you
might
observe
some
actions
that
appear
to
always
occur
in
a
 “stereotyped”
sequence.
Your
dog
may
always
circle
3‐4
times
before
settling
down
or
your
cat
 may
frequently
groom
itself
in
the
same
way,
first
licking
its
front
legs
before
moving
to
its
tail.
 Animal
behavior
researchers
have
historically
been
very
interested
in
these
stereotyped
 actions
because
they
often
represent
a
“species
specific
behavior”
(that
is,
the
same
sequence
of
 behavioral
actions
are
reliably
found
in
most
individuals
of
a
species
and
are
slightly
to
 completely
different
from
other
species).
Konrad
Lorenz
(one
of
the
founders
of
ethology)
 believed
these
stereotyped
behavioral
patterns
were
similar
to
morphological
traits
and
could
 be
used
to
help
understand
the
evolution
of
behavior.
In
his
famous
1941
paper,
the
 “Comparative
studies
of
the
motor
patterns
of
Anatinae,”
Lorenz
described
stereotyped
display
 patterns
of
20
birds
using
48
characters
(e.g.,
“body‐shaking”)
and
used
the
similarities
and
 differences
of
these
behavioral
actions
to
construct
a
“phylogeny”
(a
hypothesis
about
 evolutionary
relationships)
of
these
species.
Methods
used
to
describe
behavioral
patterns
have
 greatly
advanced
since
Lorenz’s
time
and
we
now
have
techniques
that
allow
for
a
more
 sophisticated
analysis
of
behavior.

 In
this
lab
exercise,
you
will
learn
about
techniques
of
observing,
scoring,
and
quantifying
 behavioral
patterns.
You
will
watch
videos
of
a
behavioral
sequence
exhibited
by
two
species
of
 ground
squirrels
(genus:
Spermophilus)
to
determine
if
the
behavior
is
random.

 This
lab
is
organized
to
follow
loosely
the
steps
of
the
scientific
method.
At
the
end
of
this
lab,
 you
will
become
familiar
with
simple
techniques
to
describe
and
analyze
animal
behavior,
 and
you
should
better
understand
how
differences
in
behavioral
sequences
may
exist
 between
species.
You
should
also
develop
an
appreciation
for
the
process
of
doing
science.

 MAKING
AN
INTERESTING
OBSERVATION
 Most
investigations
of
scientific
questions
begin
with
an
interesting
observation.
People
have
 noticed
that
some
species
of
ground
squirrels
exhibit
a
very
peculiar
behavior
when
they
 encounter
anything
that
is
saturated
in
snake
scent.
For
example,
California
ground
squirrels
 and
rock
squirrels
will
chew
on
shed
snake
skin
and
apply
it
to
their
fur
by
licking
their
bodies.
 This
behavior
has
been
called
“snake
scent
application”
(SSA),
is
also
found
in
other
rodents
 (e.g.,
chipmunks
and
mice).
Have
a
quick
look
at
this
behavior
now.

 ASKING
A
QUESTION
AND
DEVELOPING
A
TESTABLE
HYPOTHESIS
 Intriguing
observations
about
behaviors
often
lead
to
questions
about
how
or
why
they
 occur.
For
instance,
we
may
wonder
how
rodents
apply
snake
scent
–
do
they
apply
the
 scent
to
the
different
parts
of
their
bodies
in
a
particular
order,
or
is
the
sequence
random?
 We
will
investigate
this
question
today
(see
below).

 We
also
may
wonder
about
the
function
of
applying
the
scent.
Rattlesnakes
have
been
a
major
 predator
of
ground
squirrels
for
millions
of
years
and
this
coexistence
has
led
to
the
evolution
 of
several
unique
antipredator
strategies
in
ground
squirrels.
For
instance,
in
some
species
of
 ground
squirrels
adults
are
resistant
to
rattlesnake
venom
and
will
actively
harass
and
attack
 these
predators.
Rodents
are
a
major
prey
source
for
snakes
–
why
do
you
think
rodents
apply
 their
predator’s
scent?

 Tentative
explanations
to
your
question
are
called
hypotheses.
To
be
scientific,
hypotheses
 must
be
testable
in
some
way
using
the
five
senses
(or
some
extension
thereof).

 Within
your
group,
brainstorm
as
many
hypotheses
as
possible
to
answer
the
question
 about
function
above.
List
your
hypotheses.
Are
all
of
them
testable?
Give
at
least
one
 example
of
a
non‐testable
hypothesis.

 Choose
 one
 testable
 hypothesis
 and
 suggest
 specific
 ways
 to
 test
 it.
 What
 predictions
 would
 you
make
to
support
or
refute
this
hypothesis?

 Researchers
have
proposed
several
hypotheses
for
the
function
of
SSA
in
ground
squirrels:
an
 anti‐predator
function,
an
anti‐parasite
function,
and/or
a
social
alarm
cue.
These
researchers
 are
currently
testing
the
alternative
hypotheses
experimentally.
However,
before
testing
the
 function
of
a
behavior,
it
was
important
for
them
to
have
a
good
description
of
the
behavior.

 In
this
lab,
we
will
focus
on
describing
SSA
behavior.
We
will
ask
whether
snake
scent
is
 applied
randomly
over
the
squirrels’
bodies,
and
whether
there
this
behavior
differs
between
 the
two
species.

 Why
might
you
expect
SSA
to
be
non‐random?
What
would
be
the
benefit
of
applying
snake
 scent
more
regularly
to
some
parts
of
the
body
than
others?

 Why
might
you
expect
different
patterns
between
species?

 TESTING
YOUR
HYPOTHESIS
 In
this
section,
you
will
test
the
hypothesis
that
SSA
behavior
is
random
with
respect
to
areas
 of
the
body.
That
is,
whether
the
squirrels
simply
apply
the
snake
scent
or
whether
they
apply
 the
scent
to
specific
areas
of
their
bodies.

 You
will
watch
videos
of
SSA
behavior
from
two
species
of
ground
squirrel,
California
ground
 squirrels
(S.
beecheyi)
and
rock
squirrels
(S.
variegatus).
To
obtain
the
videos,
a
researcher
 staked
out
a
shed
skin
of
a
sympatric
rattlesnake
species
(Crotalus
atrox
for
rock
squirrels,
 C.
viridis
oreganos
for
California
ground
squirrels)
and
surrounded
it
with
a
minimal
bait
trail
 and

 (sunflower
seeds)
to
attract
the
squirrels
to
the
skin.
The
squirrels
were
marked
with
numbers
 (fur
dye)
to
identify
individuals.
Each
video
represents
a
different
individual.
The
study
sites
 were
in
Winters,
CA
(California
ground
squirrels)
and
Caballo,
NM
(rock
squirrels)
in
county
or
 state
parks
where
squirrels
were
used
to
cars.
The
squirrels
were
videotaped
from
a
car,
~20‐ 30
m
away.

 Part
1
–
Collecting
data

 VIEWING
SSA
VIDEOS

 1)
Behavioral
biologists
use
something
called
an
ethogram
when
observing
animals
and
taking
 observational
data.
An
ethogram
is
a
catalog
of
behaviors.
The
specific
ethogram
used
in
a
study
 will
depend
upon
the
question
asked,
and
on
how
accurately,
and
with
what
specificity,
a
 particular
behavior
can
be
scored.
The
behaviors
you
will
be
scoring
are
what
body
sections
 ground
squirrels
apply
snake
scent
to
after
chewing
shed
skins.

 2)
You
will
be
tallying
snake‐scent
application
on
the
following
body
regions

 
 Figure
1.
Ground
Squirrel
body
sections

 3)
Next
you
will
record
the
frequency
of
the
application
behavior
for
both
species.
 Make
observations
for
4
individuals
of
each
species.
Record
the
total
frequency,
from
 all
four
individuals,
on
the
tables
below.

 
 Flank

 Head

 Front
leg

 Hind
leg

 Tail

 Spermophilus
beechyi

 Spermophilus
variegatus

 4)
You
have
all
of
the
videos
in
the
SSA
clips
folder
on
the
desktop.
Choose
four
for
each
 species
(labeled
Clip
b#
for
S.
beecheyi,
and
Clip
v#
for
S.
variegatus),
watch
each
of
these
and
 record
your
data
for
each
focal
animal
in
the
table
above
(or
you
can
make
one
of
your
own).

 5)
At
the
end,
you
should
have
data
collected
forfour
different
individuals,
eight
 individuals
total.

 Part
2
­Interpreting
your
results

 STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
(CHI­SQUARE)
 Your
observed
behavior
matrix
is
a
nice
way
to
document
the
behavior
you
observed
in
your
 squirrels.
However,
often
it
is
important
to
know
whether
this
behavior
is
simply
random
or
if
 there
is
some
characteristic
pattern
to
it.
For
instance,
we
might
wish
to
know
whether
 squirrels
focus
on
their
tails
more
that
their
body.
With
our
observed
behavior
data,
it
is
 possible
to
statistically
test
whether
the
location
of
the
SSA
behavior
is
random
or
not.
The
 statistical
method
employed
in
this
case
is
the
chi‐square
test.

 2 The
chi‐square
(Χ ) test
compares
the
observed
behaviors
to
what
would
be
expected
if
 the
behaviors
were
randomly
distributed.
The
basic
formula
used
to
compute
a
chi‐ square
is:

 
 where:

 Oi
=
an
observed
frequency

 Ei
=
an
expected
frequency,
asserted
by
the
null
hypothesis

 For
example,
let
us
say
we
were
to
observe
100
SSA
behaviors,
divided
into
4
groups:
the
flank,
 the
tail
base,
the
middle
tail,
and
the
tail
tip.
If
the
behavior
were
truly
random,
we
would
 expect
those
100
behaviors
to
be
distributed
evenly
among
our
4
body
parts,
25
each.
This
 gives
us
our
expected
values
for
our
chi‐square
calculations.
These
expected
values
represent
 our
null
hypothesis;
in
this
case,
our
null
hypothesis
is
that
squirrel
snake
scent
application
 behavior
is
randomly
distributed
over
the
body
(hence
25
expected
touches
to
each
of
the
4
 body
parts).
If

 our
statistical
analysis
allows
us
to
reject
this
hypothesis,
we
may
conclude
that
SSA
behavior
is
 non‐random.
(NOTE:
Your
data
is
divided
into
5
body
regions,
not
4.
The
expected
number
of
 touches
to
a
particular
body
region
therefore
would
be
your
total
number
of
observations
 divided
by
5.)

 In
our
100
SSA
observations,
let
us
say
we
see
squirrels
lick
their
flanks
21
times,
their
front
 legs
22
times,
their
hind
legs
29
times,
and
their
tail
28
times.
We
would
see
that
there
is
some
 variation
between
our
observed
and
expected
values.
Although
a
chi‐square
calculation
is
 simple
enough
to
do
as
a
single‐line
equation,
some
might
find
it
helpful
to
organize
your
data
 into
a
table
like
the
ones
below.

 expected

 observed
 Flank

 25

 21

 Front
 leg

 25

 22

 Hind
 leg

 25

 29

 Tail

 25

 28

 Total

 100

 100

 To begin our chi-square calculations, we subtract the observed values from our expected values and square them. expected

 observed

 O‐E

 (O‐E)2

 Flank

 25

 21

 ‐4

 16

 Front
 leg

 25

 22

 ‐3

 9

 Hind
 leg

 25

 29

 4

 16

 Tail

 25

 28

 3

 9

 Total

 100

 100

 Next, we divide the squares of our expected-observed observations by the expected value. expected

 observed

 O‐E

 (O‐E)2

 (O‐E)2/E

 Front
 leg

 25

 22

 ‐3

 9

 0.36

 Flank

 25

 21

 ‐4

 16

 0.64

 Hind
 leg

 25

 29

 4

 16

 0.64

 Tail

 25

 28

 3

 9

 0.36

 Total

 100

 100

 Finally, these values are summed to arrive at our chi-square value: 0.64 + 0.36 + 0.64 + 0.36 = 2. For those calculating the chi-square as a single-line equation, your set up will look like: 2 2 2 2 2 Χ =
(21‐25) /25
+
(22‐25) /25
+
(21‐25) /25
+
(22‐25) /25
=
 2

 2 By
itself,
a
Χ value
of
2
is
quite
meaningless.
We
need
to
determine
whether
or
not
this
 2 indicates
a
significant
deviation
from
our
expected
distribution.
Therefore,
once
our
Χ value
is
 obtained,
we
need
to
compare
it
to
a
table
of
critical
values
(like
that
shown
below)
which
will
 allow
us
to
determine
whether
our
observed
data
deviates
significantly
from
our
expectations
 due
to
random
chance.
The
first
step
in
this
process
is
determining
the
degrees
of
freedom
we
 have
in
our
sample
data.
Degrees
of
freedom
refer
to
how
many
independent
pieces
of
data
are
 assembled
in
our
final
data
set.
In
our
case,
there
are
4
body
parts
in
our
data
set.
Only
three
of
 these
are
independent,
because
if
we
were
given
three
pieces
of
the
data
table,
we
would
be
 able
to
determine
what
the
fourth
was.
As
such,
the
fourth
value
is
not
independent
and
cannot
 be
included
in
our
degrees
of
freedom,
leaving
us
with
a
df
of
3.
Generally
speaking
for
simple
 data
sets,
the
degree
of
freedom
is
one
less
than
the
number
of
observed
classes
of
data.
 
Table
of
Chi‐Squared
Critical
Values

 df 
1

 
2

 
3

 
4

 
5

 0.10 2.706

 4.605

 6.251

 7.779

 9.236

 0.05 3.841

 5.991

 7.815

 9.488

 11.070

 0.025 5.024

 7.378

 9.348

 11.143

 12.833

 0.01 6.635

 9.210

 11.345

 13.277

 15.086

 0.001 10.828
 13.816
 16.266
 18.467
 20.515

 2 In
our
table
of
critical
values,
we
see
that
the
critical
Χ value
to
reject
our
null
hypothesis
is

 7.815
at
a
confidence
of
0.05
(an
arbitrary
standard
cutoff,
although
others
are
sometimes
 2 used)
with
3
degrees
of
freedom.
This
means
that
our
Χ score
would
have
to
exceed
7.815
in
 order
for
us
to
reject
our
null
hypothesis
(that
SSA
body
application
is
random).
In
our
case,
a
 chi‐square
value
of
2
does
not
allow
us
to
reject
this
hypothesis.
Our
data
therefore
cannot
be
 said
to
be
significantly
different
from
random.

 DISCUSSION

 Was
the
SSA
behavior
random?
Or
did
the
squirrels
seem
to
prefer
to
apply
the
scent
to
 particular
areas
of
the
body?
Why
might
this
be
the
case?

 Did
you
observe
any
species
differences?
What
might
explain
any
species
differences?

 How
would
you
test
hypotheses
about
species
differences?

 ASSIGNMENT
#1

 Your
assignment
for
this
portion
of
the
demonstration
is
to
determine
whether
each
species
 exhibits
a
random
application
of
snake
scent.
Be
sure
to
show
your
work
and
report
both
the
 chi‐square
values
for
each
species
as
well
as
whether
or
not
these
differences
are
significant.
 What
critical
value
needs
to
be
achieved
before
the
difference
is
considered
significant
at
0.05
 and
at
0.01
probability?
How
many
degrees
of
freedom
do
you
have?
In
addition,
consider
 some
other
animal
behavior
that
interests
you.
Write
a
testable
hypothesis
to
help
you
explain
 this
behavior.
 

 EXERCISE
2:
Library
Research

 On
occasion
over
the
course
of
your
career
here
at
UCLA,
you
will
need
to
research
a
topic
in
 greater
detail
than
is
available
in
lecture
or
lab.
For
these
times,
it
would
be
helpful
to
be
 familiar
with
the
library
system.
Biologists
use
various
sources
to
gather
information
on
the
 organisms
and
processes
that
they
research.
The
world
today
is
full
of
easy‐to‐access
 information,
yet
most
researchers
begin
their
searches
using
several
types
of
resources
that
are
 readily
available
through
the
UCLA
libraries.

 We
can
group
resources
into
three
major
classes:
websites,
books
and
journal
articles.
These
 resources
may
or
may
not
have
overlapping
information.
How
do
you
know
when
to
use
one
 or
the
other?
When
is
it
appropriate
to
use
one
type
of
resource
instead
of
another?

 The
internet
is
a
great
way
to
find
information
very
quickly.
One
issue
with
the
accessibility
of
 information
on
the
web
is
that
it
is
often
not
fact‐checked
by
any
outside
sources.
There
are
 certainly
areas
on
the
web
that
are
more
reliable,
but
it
is
difficult
to
add
“accurate”
into
the
 subject
line
of
your
search
to
find
the
websites
that
have
better
quality
information.

 Books
are
often
very
useful
resources.
If
you
look
through
the
“literature
cited”
section
of
most
 biological
research
articles,
you
won’t
find
very
many
books
cited
there.
Why
is
that?
There
can
 be
several
reasons
why
books
don’t
generally
appear
there.
One
possibility
is
that
many
books
 carry
very
general
information,
which
doesn’t
provide
much
background
for
a
very
technical
 research
paper.
Another
reason
is
that
books
can
take
years
to
write,
edit,
and
publish.
In
the
 time
it
takes
to
get
the
book
finished,
a
lot
more
research
has
often
been
done
on
the
topics
in
 the
book,
and
that
new
information
may
be
more
accurate.
New
information
is
usually
 published
in
the
third
type
of
resource:
the
journal
article.

 Journals
are
collections
of
papers
from
a
scientific
discipline.
They
generally
represent
the
 most
recent
and
up‐to‐date
information
that
researchers
have
found.
Journals
also
have
a
 distinct
advantage
over
information
found
on
most
websites:
they
are
peer‐reviewed.
This
 notation
means
that
each
article
that
you
see
printed
in
a
journal
was
read,
and
commented
 on,
by
several
other
people
doing
research
in
that
field.
In
this
way,
journals
try
to
discourage
 publishing
articles
that
are
produced
from
poorly
constructed
experiments
or
articles
with
 badly
drawn
conclusions.
Peer
review
is
a
fundamental
aspect
of
the
process
of
science.

 What
does
this
mean
for
us?
Well,
as
you
move
through
various
courses
in
biology,
you
will
be
 looking
for
information
on
different
topics.
If
you
know
what
kind
of
information
you
want,
you
 may
choose
to
use
different
types
of
resources.
Making
use
of
the
appropriate
search
engine
 will
help
you
find
the
information
you
need.
The
UCLA
Biomedical
Library
provides
several
 different
types
of
search
engines
that
you
can
use.

 EXERCISE

 Today
we’ll
pick
a
topic,squirrel
behavior,
and
practice
using
these
different
search
engines.

 1.
Go
to
the
Biomedical
Library
(BL)
website:

 http://www.library.ucla.edu/
 biomed/
 In
the
top
left
corner
is
a
tab
marked
“UCLA
Library
Catalog”
Type
“squirrel
behavior”
into
 the
search
box
and
make
sure
you
mark
Keyword
search
on
the
right
hand
side.

 How
many
resources
appear?
Are
they
books
or
 journals?
In
what
year
was
the
most
recent
resource
 published?

 2.
Return
to
the
main
BL
website
page.
In
the
top
left
corner,
just
to
the
right
of
the
UCLA
 Library
Catalog
link
is
a
link
to
the
UC
Melvyl
Catalog.

 Type
“squirrel
behavior”
into
the
search
box.
To
the
right
of
the
search
box,
under
the
line
 “Words
as
Phrase”
click
yes.
Make
sure
that
the
drop
down
menu
on
the
left
hand
side
of
 the
screen
(“Search”)
is
selected
for
Keywords.

 How
many
resources
appear?
Are
they
books
or
 journals?
In
what
year
was
the
most
recent
resource
 published?

 3.
Return
to
the
main
BL
website
page.
At
the
top
of
the
page
is
a
drop
down
menu
labeled
 Quick
links
to
selected
resources.
From
this
menu
choose
BIOSIS
Previews
(Life
Sciences).
In
 the
search
box,
type
“squirrel
behavior”
and
click
on
the
Go
button.

 How
many
resources
appear?
Are
they
books
or
 journals?
In
what
year
was
the
most
recent
resource
 published?

 Notice
that
some
of
the
journal
records
have
a
tab
marked
“UC­eLinks”
beneath
them.
You
can
 click
on
this
button
to
have
the
library
database
check
to
see
if
an
electronic
copy
is
available.
 UCLA
has
electronic
access
to
many
of
the
journals,
allowing
you
to
access
a
.pdf
copy
of
the
 article
from
any
UCLA
internet
connection.
If
an
electronic
copy
is
available,
a
link
will
be
 available
from
the
UC‐eLinks
window.

 4.
Just
for
kicks,
go
to
http://www.google.com
and
type
in
“squirrel
behavior”.
How
many
 links
do
you
get
from
that
search?

 When
would
it
be
useful
to
use
a
UCLA
Library
Catalog
search
instead
of
a
Melvyl
or
BIOSIS
 search?

 Most
researchers
looking
for
background
information
for
their
papers
use
searches
on
 databases
like
BIOSIS
because
they
want
very
specific
sets
of
information.
Repeat
steps
1‐5
 and
let’s
make
the
search
more
specific.
Instead
of
looking
for
all
the
information
on
squirrel
 behavior
that
exists,
let’s
find
information
that
deals
specifically
with
squirrel
mating
 behavior.

 For
each
resource,
type
“squirrel
mating
behavior”
(or
“squirrel
AND
mating
AND
 behavior”)
into
the
search
box
and
identify
how
many
resources
appear.
Now
that
you’ve
done
 some
searches
you’ve
seen
several
types
of
resources
that
biologists
use
when
developing
their
 own
research
topics.
Background
information
provides
the
basis
for
the
creation
of
hypotheses
 and
helps
researchers
come
up
with
conclusions
that
make
sense
in
the
light
of
other
 experimental
results.
One
very
important
resource
used
in
developing
hypotheses
is
something
 called
a
review
paper.
Many
journals
are
devoted
to
publishing
reviews
of
various
topics.
 Review
papers
are
summaries
of
recent
research
developments
in
a
very
specific
area
of
 science.
Reviews
are
shorter
than
books,
so
they
reach
publication
much
more
quickly
than
 most
books.

 
 ASSIGNMENT
#2

 Your
assignment
for
this
week
is
to
create
a
list
of
citations
that
starts
a
review
of
a
topic
 that
your
TA
will
help
you
choose.

 1 Think
about
a
topic
that
interests
you,
and
do
a
literature
search
on
the
topic.
Make
sure
 your
TA
has
approved
your
topic.

 2 Conduct
a
BIOSIS,
Melvyl,
and
UCLA
Catalog
search
on
your
topic
and
create
a
mini‐ reference
section
that
you
will
hand
in
next
week.
This
section
should
include
at
least
6
journal
 articles
and
at
least
2
book
titles
or
book
chapters.
You
will
need
to
include
the
search
as
well
as
 the
search
engine
that
you
used.

 3 The
references
should
be
typed
in
the
format
shown
below.
Cutting
and
pasting
the
 references
from
the
search
engines
will
NOT
work.
You
will
also
need
to
alphabetize
your
 references.

 4 At
least
one
of
your
journal
articles
should
provide
an
active
link
to
a
PDF
version
of
the
 article.
For
one
of
the
articles
that
you
include
in
your
list,
open
up
the
PDF,
count
the
number
of
 references
in
that
article
and
determine
how
many
are
from
journal
articles
and
how
many
 come
from
books,
then
attach
the
front
page
and
the
reference
pages
of
the
PDF
to
your
 assignment.

 Search
terms
____________________________


































































 






 Search
Engine
_________________________

 
 
 
 
 







 From
attached
PDF:
Number
of
journal
articles
cited:
______.
Books
cited:______.

 Hannon,
M.;
Jenkins,
S.;
Crabtree,
R.;
Swanson,
A.
2006.
Visibility
and
 vigilance:
Behavior
and
population
ecology
of
uinta
ground
squirrels
 (Spermophilus
armatus)
in
different
habitats.
Journal
of
Mammalogy
87:
287
 295.

 Houtman,
A.
2003.
The
response
of
tree
squirrels
to
conspecific
and
 heterospecific
alarm
calls.
in
B.
Ploger
and
K.
Yasukawa
{eds.}
Exploring
animal
 behavior
in
laboratory
and
field:
An
hypothesis­testing
approach
to
the
 development,
causation,
function,
and
evolution
of
animal
behavior.
San
Diego,
 CA,
Academic
Press:
295‐300.

 Steele,
M.
2001.
North
American
tree
squirrels.
Washington,
D.C.,
Smithsonian
 Institution
Press.

 Sushma,
H.
and
M.
Singh.
2006.
Resource
partitioning
and
interspecific
 interactions
among
sympatric
rain
forest
arboreal
mammals
of
the
Western
 Ghats,
India.
Behavioral
Ecology
17:
479‐490.
 ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online