Beta Fish Data

In an article by Lee Alan Dugatkin and Jean Guy J. Godin they discuss how women unknowingly select their mates based on what they believe to be their choices and personal preferences, but really their choices stem from their subconscious and biological pre-programing. One of the examples that are given in the article is how vibrant colors, although not evolutionarily smart in terms of camouflage, are effective when it comes to finding a mate. Like for instance guppies and peacocks, the males possess these vibrant, bright colors to attract females and innately that is what the females look for. The more colorful the male, the more likely the female will choose him to breed with because to them the brighter the males are the stronger their genes are and the more possible it is that their offspring will survive and continue passing on their genes (Dugatkin et Godin,

Reproductive monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on their sexual interactions. Social Monogamy refers to male and female’s social living arrangement without sexual interactions. It refers to the living patterns, raising offsprings, and obtaining food. Monogamy is common in birds, but also occurs in invertebrates. Why would a male mammal choose to mate with one female when he can mate with more than one? Why would the male stay around instead of finding another female to live with? Many researchers have attempted to answer this question of why some mammals prefer monogamy over polygamy. Vole rats, one of the species that perform monogamous mating, demonstrate pair boding. Male and female pairs of vole rats have been observed together over several months, and the males stay with females even when the female is not reproductively active. A typical vole family in the wild is almost always consisted of one male, one female, and their offspring. In addition, unlike other species in which females are the only ones taking care of the offspring, vole rats share parental roles and even build nests together. Because they show these monogamous behaviors, they have served as a good species/model to learn about monogamy for neuroscientists. In this paper, monogamy, specifically in vole rats, will be explained along with its proximate and ultimate causes of this adaptation.

Mate choice is a product of mate preferences form in the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA). Sexual selection suggests that females prefer males who they can gain benefits from such as gifts. This is shown in male birds who make nests for females in order to mate with them and also in insects who give nuptial gifts.

In his article, The Strategies of Finding a Mate, David M. Buss discusses the act of finding a mate and the characteristics that people are drawn to in a mate. He begins the article with a brief look at the history of mating and the theories that have previously been proposed. In particular he addressed Charles Darwin’s theory of sexual evolution and belief in preferential mate choice. Buss proposes that there are three components to human mating. He states that “human mating is inherently strategic… mating strategies are context-dependent… [and that] men and women have faced different mating problems over the course of human evolution and, as a consequence, have evolved different strategies” (Buss, 1994, p. 241). He uses this theory to propose nine different hypotheses to prove that despite humans being varied and different from each other, all humans look for similar characteristics when trying to find a mate (Buss, 1994).

This essay aims to show a comparison between the differences between both female short-term mating strategies and female long-term mating strategies. It will explore the evolution of psychology that has shown reasons for human mating and how these reasons go above and beyond the general idea of physical attractiveness and love. This essay will identify how mate preferences have evolved and further identify psychological mechanisms that women have used to select their mates over the past. This essay will compare and critically discuss the differences and outline them between female short-term mating strategies and female long-term mating

A collection of five samples was made at this site (Table 1). The first sample collection captured 12 Ringed Crayfish with 0 recaptures and 0 that were previously marked. The second sample collection captured 7 Ringed Crayfish with 0 recaptures and 12 previously marked. The third sample collection captured 13 Ringed Crayfish with 0 recaptures and 19 previously marked. The fourth sample collection captured 4 Ringed Crayfish with 1 recapture and 32 previously marked. The fifth sample collection captured 11 Ringed Crayfish with 1 recapture and 35 previously marked. The total number of Ringed Crayfish caught is 47 crayfish with a population estimation (N) of approximately 422 crayfish where N=Σ (CixMi)/ Σ Ri. The total confidence interval of the estimated population (95%CI) is a range from 354.1 to 521.9 for the mark-recapture

The purpose of this Betta fish lab was to analyze the behaviors of a male Betta fish when placed in the same bowl as another male and a female, both separate. The reactions and submissiveness/aggressiveness was observed and recorded. For several minutes the two fish were in the same bowl but unable to have contact and observations were recorded. Then, the two fish were allowed to have contact and observations were, again, recorded.

Since there were only 30 Rivius as the predators, the females would have a much easier time breeding with whomever they wanted to as Rivius can only eat baby guppies. The percentage for brighter males was 47%, 31%, and 24% for the brightest males, and for the bright males it was, 44%. 46%, and 29% to make on average of 34% and 39.667% of the total population. The percentages for the drabber males were only a mere, 6%, 15%, and 25% for the drab males and 4%, 8%, and 21% for the drabbest males creating a tiny average of 15.334% for the drab males and 11% for the drabbest of males. With this in mind, it showed compared to the drabber guppies, with little predators, the females had sexually prefered the brighter males from the percentages of the population distributions I had obtained. If the females guppies had no preference, it would lean toward having more equal percentages and if the females prefered the drabber guppies, there would be much higher percentages for them, showing us an obvious preference for the brighter

The chances of mating or surviving in real life are usually not in the probability of a die roll. There are so many ways that rolling a die to decide survival and mating of a animal is wrong and inaccurate. If someone cheats or does not roll the die correctly(rolling it from your hand and having it not bouncing on the surface instead landing flat on the table) that could make (depending on the habitat and fish) the probability even more inaccurate. I can guarantee that these chances for mating and survival (that we used in class) are never a constant probability(1/6, 6/6, 2/6 and ECT.) in real life. In order to truly understand the actual probability of survival and mating, actual research must be done. A way to do this is to observe them in a controlled habitat(Fishtank). Put a SAFE ratio of male guppies to female guppies(1-2) in a fish-tank, then mix and match species to record data based on the mating lab you are trying to complete. Testing survival on the other hand, is a lot more complex to collect data on. You cannot test predators or the guppies' hiding ability in a fish tank. The guppies cannot hide forever and are trapped with a predator. The lab must be on a much larger scale.The guppies could be put in a small pond that has some of the hazards any regular guppies would experience. Then check on that pond once or twice a day and see if anything is changed

This result is not very clear, since the purpose of the outcome does not suggest whether the use of space is correlated with environmental factors shaping mating

domesticus. For example, a greater level of hunger, restricted access to mates, and increased odors of females will increase and escalate the males’ aggression when fighting (Brown et al. 2007). A study done by Brown suggests that motivational symmetries change a males’ aggression. It was concluded that the solitary males initiated 80% of the aggressive behaviors during fights against males who have an unlimited access to females (Brown et al. 2007). The solitary males are more willing to increase aggressiveness in fights over mates because they will benefit more from winning. When fighting for females, solitary males have better mating success by a factor of 14:1. However, because females favor males with qualities related to good competitive skills, the males’ aggressive behavior increases to improve their reproductive

The main result for hypothesis 1 was that sharing (inferred from the increased time spent as a pair in a patch and the more equal amount of larvae ingested between paired kin) was more significant for kin pairs than non-kin. Kin-pair subordinates had kin selection advantages once the dominant kin was satiated by sharing territories. Aggression seemed to be invariable between the kin and non-kin pairs. In the absence of the dominant fish, subordinate fish spent more time in the patches and ate more which indicated that kinship played a role in its territorial migration and foraging behavior.

In each test arena, there were three feeding patches. The fish were put in the test arenas and be observed daily about their position, foraging behavior and aggressive

Another evolutionary explanation of gender development is mate choice, which suggests that gender role behaviours are related to reproductive strategies. It is thought that men will look for women who are young whereas women are usually more interested in the resources of a mate. This can be explained from an evolutionary perspective as mating with a physically attractive woman

It is generally well understood that mating in animals is dependent upon a number of ecological factors that determine if, when, and how many times an organism can mate. These factors include, but are not limited too: spatial separation of mates and resources, how long the specimen are sexually active/virile, does this species advocate parental care for their young, sex ratio and mate availability, and ultimately sexual selection. These factors will be discussed, broken down, and addressed in detail throughout the course of this paper.