Final Project, Group Worksheet #2 (20pts)

Due Date: 2/23

The purpose of this worksheet is for your group to articulate changes youve made to your research
design. Now that youve had at least one day to try out your proposed protocol, you should use this to
clarify or alter the methods youll be using, to modify the hypothesis youll be testing, or to re-evaluate
how youll conduct your statistical tests.
For each question, if youve made alterations, explain why the changes youve made will improve
your design. Your answer might be improved feasibility (meaning that youll have better success actually
conducting the research), improved validity (youll be more confident that youre answering the question
you intend to answer), etc. If you have not made alterations on a particular point, explain why your
original design was sufficient and better than the alternatives.
Very clearly answer each of the following parts (please respond in a distinctly different font). Be
very specific!
1. Hypothesis are you testing the same hypothesis youve originally proposed? Why or why not?
(2pts):
We are testing the same first hypothesis that ducks will prefer food that requires lower energy foraging
rather than food that requires higher energy foraging. During our pilot testing, we were able to get ducks
to respond to food in both conditions, which makes our hypothesis feasible to test. For our second
hypothesis, we are slightly revising the wording of our hypothesis. We are adjusting the wording of our
hypothesis from comparing calories of food to sugar contents of food, since the serving sizes between our
cheerios and instant oatmeal is different, which makes doing comparative calorie calculations difficult.
Sugar content is assumed to be a good proxy for caloric content, and is easier for us to standardize the
nutritional values of the two different serving sizes.
2. List your independent variable(s) and give their even more precise operational definitions. Have
you changed how youll be manipulating or measuring your independent variable? Why? If not,
why not? (4pts):
Independent Variable: Proximity of food given to ducks in water

Operational Definitions:

Food given in water, closer to ducks-> lower energy cost

Food given out of water, further from ducks -> higher energy cost

Instant oatmeal -> Food with lower sugar content

Cheerios -> food with higher sugar content

Measuring Explanatory Variable:

Experimenting on ducks floating/swimming in Drumheller Fountain

1st set of trials: throw oatmeal into water in fountain (closer proximity to ducks in fountain;
swimming to food -> lower energy cost)
2nd set of trials: throw oatmeal on ground outside fountain (further proximity to ducks in
fountain; flying/jumping out of fountain to food -> higher energy cost)
3rd set of trials: throw cheerios outside of the fountain, further proximity to ducks in fountain,
higher energy cost but for higher sugar food

We did not change how we will be manipulating or measuring our independent variable, although we did
change the specificity of the type of food we will use for our trials. Rather than choosing foods with
low/high caloric content (oats/peas vs. Froot Loops), we will be using foods with low/high sugar content
(instant oatmeal vs. Cheerios).

3. List your dependent variable(s) and give their even more precise operational definitions. Have
you changed how youll be manipulating or measuring your dependent variable? Why? If not,
why not? (4pts)
Dependent Variable: Percentage of ducks present that actively move towards the food given
Operational Definitions:

# of ducks that actively move towards the food given/# of ducks present

Measuring Response Variable:

For each trial, measure the number of ducks present in the vicinity of the fountain

After throwing food, measure the number of ducks that actively move towards the food given

Divide the number of ducks that actively move towards the food given by the total number of ducks

present
We did not change how we will be manipulating or measuring our dependent variable, although we are
changing our definition of resetting the test environment between trials, which affects the consistency of
our measurements. We found that immediately after a trial, ducks would tend to linger, or even draw
closer, to ourselves and the sources of food. Therefore, by walking around the fountain after measuring a
trial, the ducks will be more apt to continue following us by returning back into the water of the fountain.
This will allow for the ducks to return to their previous state before beginning a new trial.
4. Describe your process in detail. Be specific this section should be more detailed than your
original version. Include justification for all of your choices (citations from the literature may be
appropriate here). Have you made any modifications? Why? If not, why not? (7 pts):
Food(oats and cheerios) portions will be weighted and given based on equal mass.
First Condition:
1. Choose a spot in Drumheller Fountain where ducks congregate(alternate spots around fountain
for each trial).
2. Do different conditions on different days( Throwing oats in fountain vs. throwing cheerios outside
of the fountain).
3. Take note of the number of ducks and competitor species
4. Throw oats within sight of the flock inside the fountain(Alternate group members baiting the
ducks). Oats will float, allowing for shallow foraging which takes less energy than walking and
flying(Guillemain et.al, 2000).
5. Record the number of ducks actively swimming towards the food and eating.
6. Allow time for resetting and move to another location around the the fountain to repeat trial.

7. Stop feeding trials if ducks appear uninterested/are leaving the food uneaten, or if they exhibit
aggressive behavior.
Second condition:
1. Repeat steps 1-3 in the first condition.
2. Throw cheerios(which have a higher sugar content than oats) outside of the fountain. This should
be done by throwing a small rock inside the fountain to get their attention and then throwing the
cheerios outside of the fountain. Ducks have been found to have a relatively sharp sense of
taste(Berkhoudt, 1977). Which will allow them to differentiate between cheerios and oats.
3. Record the number of ducks actively jumping/flying out of the fountain towards the food and
eating the cheerios . Jumping/flying/walking is more energy expensive than swimming(Wooley &
Owen, 1979).
4. Walk around fountain allowing for duck resetting(animals diving back into the fountain) and
move to another location around the the fountain to repeat trial.
While there are no studies that show the effect of cheerios on ducks, mallards are known to have an
efficient gut which allows them to adapt to the quality varying diets(Miller, 1975). Oats are included in
the list of foods similar to the grains birds forage on their own(Mayntz, 2016).
Modifications were made to accommodate for the difficulties experienced during our fake
trials(explained in question #5) regarding resetting trials and getting the ducks attention.
Miller, M. (1975). Gut Morphology of Mallards in Relation to Diet Quality.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3800481?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents
Wooley, J. B., & Owen, R. B.. (1978). Energy Costs of Activity and Daily Energy Expenditure in the
Black Duck.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3800764?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Matthieu Guillemain, Herv Fritz, Sandra Blais. 2000. Foraging methods can affect patch choice: an
experimental study in Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635700000954
Berkhoudt, H. 1977. Taste Buds In The Bill Of The Mallard (/ANAS

PLATYRHYNCHOS/ L.). Their Morphology, Distribution and Functional Significance.

Netherlands Journal Of Zoology, 27(3), 310-331.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/content/journals/10.1163/0028296
77x00180
Mayntz, M. (2016). Everything You Need to Know about Feeding Wild Ducks. About.com Home.
Retrieved 23 February 2016, from http://birding.about.com/od/birdfeeders/a/whatduckseat.htm
5. What difficulties have you experienced and how have you addressed them? (3pts)
The Presence of geese: In our first day of pilot testing our study, geese quickly figured out that we were
handing out food, and quickly converged upon the fountain. Soon the Canadian geese quickly
outnumbered our ducks, and we could see that the ducks seemed much more hesitant to approach us for
food. We solved this problem at our next day of pilot testing by going down to Rainier Vista before
starting test trials to bait the geese further away from the fountain. We gave them lettuce and oats, and
for the next hour while we were pilot testing we were not disturbed by the geese.
People: Two issues involving humans occurred during both days of our pilot studies. The first issue that
occurred was the rush of people getting out of class during passing period, which makes attempting to
test if ducks will come out of the fountain for food difficult because the ducks are unwilling to come out
into the path where a lot of people are walking. To solve this, we have decided to suspend trials during
passing period. The other issue we had was that other humans would come to the fountain to feed the
animals, which would of course distract the ducks and mess up our data collection. To solve this, we have
decided that when we finally start recording data, we will go up to people who are feeding ducks and ask
them to stop, and explain to them that we are working on a class project. If they are still insistent on
feeding ducks, we could enlist them to help feed the ducks for us in the course of data collection, or enlist
them in distracting the geese.
Resetting trials: When we ran our fake trials, especially for when we were trying to get ducks to come out
of the water, the ducks would hang around the three of us for an extended period of time in the hopes that

we would dispense more food. To reset the trials so that the ducks would return to the center of the pond,
we discovered that if we waited long enough, they would eventually leave us alone and return into the
water. However, some ducks would wander way off towards Guggenheim or other buildings to forage,
which would affect our total sample population figures. The most optimal way for resetting the trials it
seems, is to simply walk around the fountain. The ducks follow us for a time, but eventually get bored and
return to the fountain. Using this technique, the amount of ducks lost due to foraging elsewhere is kept to
a minimum and takes less time than simply waiting.
Getting the ducks attention: On the first day of pilot testing, when we tried to spread food outside of the
fountains, not many of the ducks actually noticed that we had scattered food for them. In order to solve
this issue, we decided to throw only one cheerio into the water, and then spread the rest of the food
outside of the fountain. It seems that as a product of the ducks habituation to humans, they are much
more attuned to when food is thrown into the water. Therefore, we decided to use this to our advantage in
order to get the ducks attention. However, we further considered that if we are adding a single cheerio as
a bait before beginning a trial, we may possibly be skewing our data, as most of the ducks actively move
towards the single cheerio. We decided that we will use a small rock instead of a single cheerio in order
to get the ducks attention, in order to reduce the effect that the single cheerio would have on skewing our
data.
6. How will you analyze your data? Which tests a priori and/or post hoc? (1pt):
We will be analyzing our data using two independent groups t-tests. Both of these tests will be a priori
since we have two predetermined hypotheses that we will be using the data to test.