Jericho James C. Regidor Experiment 2. Adaptation, Fitness, and Natural Selection Bio 14.

1 9:00-12:00 PM Th

Bio 14.1 Exercise 2 Lab Report

I. Introduction

When one talks about adaptation they typically talk about how one organism is
adapted to a certain environment or condition. Example would be “The fish is
adapted to living in water.”, in this example it merely states that a fish has
characteristics that allow it to live in water, as if the characteristics were inherently
there. The truth is that the environment acts as a force of natural selection which
caused the development of these characteristics that are present today. It is
important to note that adaptation should not imply that an organism fits in a
specific environment, but rather because of the natural selection caused by an
environment an organisms descendants are forced to develop characteristics that
allows them to survive. Speaking of surviving, it is said that only the fittest may
survive, but what does fitness mean? Fitness is simply a measurement of how many
offspring an individual can produce compared to how many offspring another
individual can produce. However, these offspring have to survive and produce more
offspring as well. One is not the fittest if they leave hundreds of offspring but over
half of them die the next year, the fittest would be the individual who leaves only a
few offspring but all of them survive to maturity and reproduce[1].

II. Methodology

In this experiment, students simulated the phenomenon of natural selection,

and the survival of the fittest. This was done by preparing 200 pieces of red, orange,
and yellow macaroni, then scattering all of them in a 2x2 meter square, these would
serve as the prey. Three students, each with a unique hand picking method, were
tasked to be predators and pick up as many macaroni pieces as possible within the
time limit. This simulation was repeated three times. After each trial however, the
predator who collected the most prey would be given another member in the group
to assist them in collecting prey, and the prey who had the largest remaining
population would have that population doubled in the next trial.

III. Results and Discussion

Environment Type: Grassy Area

Table 1a. Percentage of predators with each trait.
 Thumb and
Predator Type All Hands Hand tongs
index finger
P 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
F1 25% 25% 50%
F2 20% 20% 60%
F3 16.67% 16.67% 66.67%

Table 1b. Percentage of prey with each trait.

Prey Type Red Orange Yellow
P 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
F1 29.40% 33.95% 36.65%
F2 17.14% 20.61% 62.25%
F3 11.25% 12.86% 75.89%

In the grassy area, the predator who had the most success in capturing prey
were the predators with the Hand Tongs catching method. This method is optimal
as it can catch a larger number of prey while minimizing any grasses uprooted. The
prey that had the best survivability were those with the color yellow.

Environment Type: Rocky Area

Table 2a. Percentage of predators with each trait.
2- Fingered 5-Fingered
Predator Type Whole Hand
Chopstick Claw
P 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
F1 25% 25% 50%
F2 20% 20% 60%
F3 16.67% 16.67% 66.67%

Table 2b. Percentage of prey with each trait.

Prey Type Red Orange Yellow
P 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
F1 31.59% 31.79% 36.62%
F2 23.86% 23.26% 52.88%
F3 16.76% 16% 67.24%

In the rocky area, the predator with the Whole Hand catching method was the
most successful in capturing prey. This method managed to capture a large number
of prey in a shorter amount of time as it could cover a larger area, however soil and
rock were also caught. Similar to the grassy area, the prey that had the best
survivability was the prey with the yellow color trait.

Data Analysis
Comparison Between Proportions of the Colored Individuals and the Initial
Population Composition (Chi-square Test)

Table 3. Contingency Table for Grassy Area

Prey Species Red Orange Yellow Total Rows
T Observed 142 164 177 483
1 Frequency
Expected 44.53 53.09 142.88
Frequency
T Observed 84 101 305 490
2 Frequency
Expected 46.19 53.86 144.95
Frequency
T Observed 63 72 425 560
3 Frequency
Expected 52.79 61.55 165.66
Frequency
Total Columns 289 337 907 3066

Table 4. Contingency Table for Rocky Area

Trial Prey Species Red Orange Yellow Total Rows
T1 Observed 157 158 182 497
Frequency
Expected 118.95 117.00 261.05
Frequency
T2 Observed 120 117 266 503
Frequency
Expected 120.39 118.41 264.20
Frequency
T3 Observed 88 84 353 525
Frequency
Expected 125.66 123.59 275.75
Frequency
Total Columns 365 359 801 1525

Hypothesis
Ho: the survivability of a prey is independent of its color
H1: the survivability of a prey is dependent of its color

Decision Rule
Reject Ho if X2 > X2α,df
at α = 0.05; X2α,df =12.592

Conclusion 1:
 Since X2 = 1102.92 > 12.592 = X2α,df , we reject Ho.
Hence the survival of prey in the grassy area is dependent on its color

Conclusion 2:
Since X2 = 96.12 > 12.592 = X2α,df , we reject Ho.
Hence, the survival of the preys in the rocky area is dependent on its color.

Table 5. Binomial Test values

Grassy Area Rocky Area
P1 0.6967 0.6635
P2 0.75 0.7179
n1 425 353
n2 63 84
P 0.5099 0.3980
q 0.4901 0.6020

Hypothesis
Ho: There is no observed significant difference between the OPS and EPS of prey
H1: The observed significant difference between the OPS and EPS of prey is
significant
H2: The observed significant difference between the OPS and EPS of prey is
highly significant

Decision Rule
Reject Ho if Zc > 1.96
Reject H1 if Zc < 1.96 and Zc > 2.57
Reject H2 if Zc < 2.57

Conclusion 1
Since Zc = -0.79 < 1.96, we reject the alternative hypotheses. Hence there is no
significant difference between the OPS and EPS of prey that survived in the grassy
area.

Conclusion 2
Since Zc = -0.9155 < 1.96, we reject the alternative hypotheses. Hence there is
no significant difference between the OPS and EPS of prey that survived in the rocky
area.

Before discussing the results of the simulation and the results of the data
analysis, it is important to discuss the problems encountered in this experiment.
One of the difficulties encountered was that the manual was unclear on its
statistical treatment of the data. Students encountered difficulty in analyzing the
data as the X2 was expected to be much closer to the values set in the manual, 5.99
for P<0.05 and 9.21 for P<0.01. X2 values were noted to be significantly larger than
expected, in the data received by the students a the X2 values were 1102.92 for the
grassy area and 96.102 for the rocky area.
 Moving on to the discussion, the students’ null hypothesis was that the
survivability of a prey is independent of its color. If this hypothesis were to be
proven, which it was not, it would mean that prey selection from the predator’s
perspective would be random. Based off the results of the data analysis however, it
would seem that prey selection is not random but rather dependent on the color.
Both conclusions of the two areas state that the survival of prey is dependent
on its color. Observing Table 1implies that prey with the color yellow offer the most
survivability, and in comparison with the colors red and orange, yellow would be
the fittest, as it was capable of producing more numerous offspring that managed to
survive and produce offspring of their own.
The color of prey is extremely important in the wild . For some it is camouflage,
for others it is aposematism, and so on and so forth. These colors have various uses
but it may also be detrimental. The brighter the color the more likely that they will
be preyed upon. This may explain why in the simulation, the yellow colored
macaroni was more likely to be preyed upon, apart from their own large population,
as yellow is the most visible or noticeable color to the predators[2], which were
human in the simulation.
In both areas it is interesting to note that the color yellow was not the most
preyed upon initially, it was the color red. Red in the first trial of the grassy area had
29% of its initial population preyed on, and 21.5% in the rocky area. Yellow in the
first trial of the grassy area had 11.5% of its initial population preyed on, and 9% in
the rocky area. This number gradually changes by the third trial with red having
26.67% of its F3 population preyed on in the rocky area, and 25% of the population
of red prey in the grassy area. This is compared to 33.7% of the population of yellow
prey in the rocky area being preyed upon, and 30.3% of the population of yellow
prey in the grassy area being preyed upon. This increase may be attributed to both
the availability of the yellow prey and the its color of yellow.
While the description of the predator’s method of catching prey may have been
different, the simulation allows for the dominance of one type of predator in each
environment or area. For the grassy area it was with the predator with the hand
tongs technique, and for the rocky area it was for the predator with the whole hand
techniques. These predators that dominated in the first trial or during the parental
generation, they were then given the benefit of reproducing and their offspring now
assisted in hunting for prey. This made it much more difficult for the other
competitors to compete.

IV. Conclusion
In short it is much more important for a population, be it prey or predator, to
secure as much offspring as possible in comparison to its competitors, this
demonstrates fitness, as this allows for larger population growth. Although
population dynamics state that over time the population of the dominant predators
would soon lower the overall population of the dominant prey due to its color and
abundance[3].

References
1. Begon, M., Townsend, C., Harper, J. (2006). Ecology From Individuals to
Ecosystems Fourth Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
2. Why can our eyes see yellow faster than other colors? Retrieved September 4,
2019 from
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-our-eyes-see-yellow-faster-than-other-colours
3. Predator-prey interaction. Retrieved September 4, 2019 from
http://www2.nau.edu/lrm22/lessons/predator_prey/predator_prey.html
Appendix

 Formula to solve for the values in the contingency table:

Table 3. Observed frequencies (remaining population)
Trials Prey Species Row Total
Red Orange Yellow
1 A B C A+B+C
2 D E F D+E+F
3 G H I G+H+I
Column Total A+D+G B+E+H C+F+I n=A+B+C+D+
E+F+G+H+I

Table 4. For expected frequencies

Trials Prey Species Row
Red Orange Yellow Tota
l
1 (A + B + C)(A + D + G ) (A + B + C)(B + E + H) (A + B + C)(C + F + I ) A+B
n n n +C
2 (D + E + F)(A + D + G ) (D + E + F)(B + E + H) (D + E + F)(C + F + I ) D+E
n n n +F
3 (G + H + I)(A + D + G ) (G + H + I)(B + E + H ) (G + H + I)(C + F + I ) G+H
n n n +I
Colum A+D+G B+E+H C+F+I n
n Total

Table 5. Contingency Table for Grassy Area

Prey Species Red Orange Yellow Total Rows
T Observed 142 164 177 483
1 Frequency
Expected 44.53 53.09 142.88
Frequency
T Observed 84 101 305 490
2 Frequency
Expected 46.19 53.86 144.95
Frequency
T Observed 63 72 425 560
3 Frequency
Expected 52.79 61.55 165.66
Frequency
Total Columns 289 337 907 3066

Table 6. Contingency Table for Rocky Area

Trial Prey Species Red Orange Yellow Total Rows
T1 Observed 157 158 182 497
Frequency
Expected 118.95 117.00 261.05
Frequency
T2 Observed 120 117 266 503
Frequency
Expected 120.39 118.41 264.20
Frequency
T3 Observed 88 84 353 525
Frequency
Expected 125.66 123.59 275.75
Frequency
Total Columns 365 359 801 1525

Formula to solve for the Chi-square value:

(OPSl  EPS l ) 2
2  Σ
EPS l
Sample Calculation for solving the Chi-square value

For the grassy area

2 2 2
2 = (142−45.53) + (164−53.09) + + (425−165.66) = 1102.92
X 45.53 53.09
... 165.66

For the rocky area

2 2 2
2 = (157−118.95) + (158−117) + + (353−275.75) = 96.12
X 118⋅95 117
... 275.75

 Formula to solve for Binomial Test (Zc):

P1 P2 n P  n 2 P2
Zc  ; where P  1 1
1 1 n1  n 2
Pq(  )
n1 n 2
P1 = proportion of prey that survived (color 1)
P2 = proportion of prey that survived (color 2)
n1 = observed number of prey that survived (color 1)
n2 = observed number of prey that survived (color 2)

Sample Calculation for solving Zc

0.87  0.432
Zc   10.13
1 1
(0.134)(0. 766)(  )
425 63