User:RabiaF/sandbox

Risk Sensitive Foraging Models Evaluation (Peer Review) I think the ideas that you have for your article are great. Your introduction is clear and straightforward, it could use a little bit more details perhaps on what kinds of animals that are more likely to follow this model (what animals, according to research, display this behaviour) I think the breakdown of your article is well done, just don't forget to add a reference section at the bottom. Best of luck.Reb144 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Article evaluation
The Fixed Action Pattern Article currently on Wikipedia helps to provide the reader with a basic definition of topic. In order provide a better understanding of the topic there are a few great examples given. I was interested in reviewing this article on Wikipedia because I really enjoy learning about Fixed Action Patterns in class. Although some improvements could be made to this article, overall it is fairly well written.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Currently all the information found on article is relevant. There are no real distractions present on the article page, it is fairly short and broken up into nice sections with headers.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article uses a neutral tone, and there are no particular biases that stand out.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
I believe that all viewpoints are represented equally as this is mostly an article that helps to provide a definition.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The citation provided all seem to be in good working order. The information from the original journal is accurately presented on the article page.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
This article does not reference any of the information directly in the content portion of the page. However most of the references seem very reliable, as the authors have used text books and scientific papers as their main source of information. The sources also appear to be unbiased and valid.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Although I do not see any out of date information, I do believe more information could be added. There is very little information on the history of where this theory came from and how it was developed. Furthermore, there is no mention of Konrad Lorenz and the six characteristics of fixed action he identified.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There are currently no recent conversations occurring in the Talk page for this article. However, in the past some people have pointed out a few issues and discussed the relevance of some of the information present. Furthermore, someone has also pointed out errors in a reference.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

Currently this article is not rated, and doesn't appear to be apart of any WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The Wikipedia page takes a very general approach to the topic. The article only provides and very basic level definition that could be worded a little better. Unlike class the page does not mention Konrad Lorenz and the six characteristics he found. Additionally, although the page give examples of fixed pattern behaviour it does not mention any exceptions to the fixed action pattern rule as we discussed in class.

Risk Sensitive Foraging Models
Risk Sensitive Foraging Models help to explain the variance in foraging behaviour in animals. This model allows powerful predictions to be made about an animals expected foraging behaviour. Risk sensitive foraging is based on the belief that the level of hunger that an animal experiences will determine what type of foraging activity and animal will part take in. This model suggests that if an animal hunger level is fairly high they will choose the more risk prone options. Whereas if the animals hunger level is not high the animal is more likely to part take in risk aversive option.

Thomas Caraco and his colleagues conducted an experiment in 1980 in which they examined foraging behaviours in yellow-eye juncos. This study conducted was one of the first studies examining risk sensitive foraging behaviours.

References/Articles to be used: (more to be added)

Barkan, C. P. L. (1990), A Field Test of Risk-Sensitive Foraging in Black-Capped Chickadees (Parus Atricapillus). Ecology, 71: 391–400.

Caraco, T., Martindale, S., & Whitham, M. (1980). An empirical demonstration of risk sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behaviour, 28, 820-830.

Caraco, T. (1981). Energy Budgets, Risk and Foraging Preferences in Dark-Eyed Juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology, 8: 213-217.

Planning/Ideas:

- Explain Caraco Study.

- Pros and Cons of risk sensitive foraging

- Utility function - used to further explain risk sensitive foraging.

Outline of Article:

P1: Lead Paragraph

P2: Discuss Thomas Caraco Study in detail, as this was on the first risk-sensitive foraging research.

P3: Positive and Negatives of risk-sensitive foraging. Use other research studies as example of this behaviour and how it applied.

P4: Talk about the Utility function curve -- will help to reinforce ideas of P3

P5: Summary and Conclusion. As well as discuss possible alternative theories/ contradictions that other researchers suggest. (REMOVE)

ARTICLE:

Risk Sensitive Foraging Models help to explain the variance in foraging behaviour in animals. This model allows powerful predictions to be made about expected foraging behaviour for individual groups of animals. Risk sensitive foraging is based on experimental evidence that the net energy budget level of an animal is predictive of type of foraging activity an animal will employ. Experimental evidence has indicated that individuals will change the type of foraging strategy that they use depending on environmental conditions and ability to meet net energy levels. When individuals can meet net energy level requirements by accessing food in risk aversive methods they do so. However, when net energy level requirements are not met by employing risk aversive methods, individuals are more likely to take risk prone actions in order to meet their net energy requirements.

Caraco’s Experiment[edit]
Thomas Caraco and his colleagues in 1980 were amongst the first to study risk sensitive foraging behavious in yellow-eyed juncos. For the original study seven yellow-eyed juncos were used in a two-part experiment. Part one examined foraging behaviours in five juncos when they were given a choice of eating on a perch where enough seeds were placed every time to meet their 24-hour energy requirements, or on a perch where they would sometimes find an abundance of seeds and sometimes no seeds. All individuals showed a preference to feed at the perch where they could get their daily seed requirement, the risk aversive choice. Part two examined foraging preference in four juncos, on one perch seeds were present every time but not enough to meet their 24-hour energy requirement. On the other perch they could sometimes find and abundance of seeds or no seeds. In this case the juncos showed a preference to feeding at the variable reward perch, choosing the risk prone feeding option. In order to test if individuals would change their strategy as a result of changed environment, two of the juncos from part one were used in part two of the experiment. As expected the juncos from part one who preferred the risk aversive foraging strategy switched to risk prone foraging behaviour in part two of the experiment.

Thomas Caraco a conducted follow up experiment in 1981 with dark-eyed juncos and used a larger sample size. The results were similar, dark-eyed juncos prefer risk aversive foraging behaviours when their 24-hour energy budgets can be met. However, when 24hr energy budgets are not met the juncos employ risk prone foraging behavior.

Other Animal Examples[edit]
Risk sensitive foraging has also been found in other animal species. Laboratory rats have also been found to display risk sensitive foraging. Rats prefer to forage at a constant food supply source if they are able to meet their energy requirements. But will employ risk prone foraging behaviour when the constant food supply source does not fulfill their daily energy requirement.

The common shrew has also been found to use risk sensitive foraging methods. Choosing to be risk aversive when they are able to constantly meet their energy requirements. But switching over to risk prone foraging and variable reward when their energy requirements are not met regularly.

Possible Exceptions[edit]
Follow-up studies conducted in humming birds have found conflicting evidence to risk sensitivity foraging. When the humming birds are given three different choices of food supply, risk sensitivity foraging model was not entirely accurate at predicting foraging strategy. When deciding to obtain food from experimental manipulated flowers containing: low variance, high variance and constant nectar. Humming birds were found to prefer nectar from the low variance flower more any other choice. Researchers suggest that these results may be attributed to the possibility that the humming birds were not able to examine the amount of nectar present in each flower visual

References

Caraco, Thomas; Martindale, Steven; Whittam, Thomas S. "An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences". Animal Behaviour. 28 (3): 820–830. doi:10.1016/s0003-

Barnard, C. J.; Brown, C. A. J. (1985). "Risk-Sensitive Foraging in Common Shrews (Sorex araneus L.)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 16 (2): 161–164. doi:10.2307/4599760

Caraco, Thomas (1981-06-01). "Energy budgets, risk and foraging preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 8 (3): 213–217. doi:10.1007/BF00299833. ISSN 0340-5443.

Pubols, Benjamin (1962). "Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement". Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology: 55–52.

Hurly, T.Andrew; Oseen, Michael D. "Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds". Animal Behaviour. 58 (1): 59–66. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1130