Centered at Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, we are a small group of students, managers and scientists engaged in a collaborative learning project to develop innovative large herd scenarios for exotic hoofstock management.
Have you read that byline on the Google Scholar page? [http://scholar.google.com]
"standing on the shoulders of giants"
That is what I think of when I try to envision the answer to the question "what does this all mean?" As a scientist, my first step is to go back and read how others answered this question in scientific literature. Then I look for what is similar and different between our results and the results that previous scientists reported.
Bernard, I would welcome hearing more about what pops up in your mind when you think about writing a discussion of results. Have you done this previously in writing up science lab reports?
Here is a link to some suggestions Suzanne prepared for her AP biology classes.
I'm noticing that she recommended discussing the results in terms of whether the evidence leads you to reject or accept your hypothesis. Now I am wondering if we defined the hypotheses related to our questions.
I'm thinking we are likely to have writer's block until we have the hypotheses really clearly in our minds.
Thanks for that great advice Dr. Packard! Now that we’ve finally written our hypothesis I think I’m ready to fully discuss our results. If you’ve looked at the results section, you may think at first glance that our hypothesis was wrong. Lucifer’s courtship behavior, one of the main parameters we used to assess if there was a change in Lucifer’s overall behavior, seemed to change quite a bit between the two years. Before the bull switching treatment, Lucifer courted females about 28% percent of the time. After the treatment, this figure drops to close to 5%. That’s a huge decrease in courtship. But if you look at the other variables involved, you’ll notice that there is a difference in the number of ovulating females between the two observation periods as well. In 2008, one of the females was in the peak of her estrus cycle, which prompted Lucifer to court this female more often and more intensely. In 2009, no females were in the peak of their estrus cycle, so the courtship observed was nothing more than Lucifer checking on his females estrus status.
We have evidence to support Renee’s hypothesis based on our measurements on proximity and agonistic behavior. However, there was a significant change in courtship between the two years. The question is do we interpret this change as a decline in the social well being of the vasectomized male. Considering the status of the females, Lucifer was still behaving normally, which is why we believe that his social well being was not, in fact, affected negatively.
I agree, there are many variables that can affect an individual's behavior. It is hard to decide which of those may mask the effect of the bull-switch treatment. Some of the factors Renee identified are:
1. changes in weather as summer progresses, meaning the herd spent more time in the shade
2. relationship between the main herd bull and the satellite bull (the vasectomized male was tolerant of the castrated male, but the intact male was not)
3. the age-difference between the vasectomized and intact males could have influenced their behavior differently (the vasectomized male was near the end of his life, the intact male "grew up" and increasingly escalated conflict more during the two years we watched him)
4. the number of females in estrus at the time we made observations did change how the male behaved, and this attraction varied across seasons and years (when more females were pregnant, fewer were cycling)
Have you read that byline on the Google Scholar page? [http://scholar.google.com]
ReplyDelete"standing on the shoulders of giants"
That is what I think of when I try to envision the answer to the question "what does this all mean?" As a scientist, my first step is to go back and read how others answered this question in scientific literature. Then I look for what is similar and different between our results and the results that previous scientists reported.
Bernard, I would welcome hearing more about what pops up in your mind when you think about writing a discussion of results. Have you done this previously in writing up science lab reports?
Here is a link to some suggestions Suzanne prepared for her AP biology classes.
http://wfsc.tamu.edu/jpackard/scienceinaction/pred_Agan_lab_report.pdf
I'm noticing that she recommended discussing the results in terms of whether the evidence leads you to reject or accept your hypothesis. Now I am wondering if we defined the hypotheses related to our questions.
I'm thinking we are likely to have writer's block until we have the hypotheses really clearly in our minds.
Thanks for that great advice Dr. Packard! Now that we’ve finally written our hypothesis I think I’m ready to fully discuss our results. If you’ve looked at the results section, you may think at first glance that our hypothesis was wrong. Lucifer’s courtship behavior, one of the main parameters we used to assess if there was a change in Lucifer’s overall behavior, seemed to change quite a bit between the two years. Before the bull switching treatment, Lucifer courted females about 28% percent of the time. After the treatment, this figure drops to close to 5%. That’s a huge decrease in courtship. But if you look at the other variables involved, you’ll notice that there is a difference in the number of ovulating females between the two observation periods as well. In 2008, one of the females was in the peak of her estrus cycle, which prompted Lucifer to court this female more often and more intensely. In 2009, no females were in the peak of their estrus cycle, so the courtship observed was nothing more than Lucifer checking on his females estrus status.
ReplyDeleteWe have evidence to support Renee’s hypothesis based on our measurements on proximity and agonistic behavior. However, there was a significant change in courtship between the two years. The question is do we interpret this change as a decline in the social well being of the vasectomized male. Considering the status of the females, Lucifer was still behaving normally, which is why we believe that his social well being was not, in fact, affected negatively.
I agree, there are many variables that can affect an individual's behavior. It is hard to decide which of those may mask the effect of the bull-switch treatment. Some of the factors Renee identified are:
ReplyDelete1. changes in weather as summer progresses, meaning the herd spent more time in the shade
2. relationship between the main herd bull and the satellite bull (the vasectomized male was tolerant of the castrated male, but the intact male was not)
3. the age-difference between the vasectomized and intact males could have influenced their behavior differently (the vasectomized male was near the end of his life, the intact male "grew up" and increasingly escalated conflict more during the two years we watched him)
4. the number of females in estrus at the time we made observations did change how the male behaved, and this attraction varied across seasons and years (when more females were pregnant, fewer were cycling)