2. Download the PDF here: Andersson 1982.pdf
3. Read the paper. To do this, I recommend trying the following technique:
(A) Read the paper once through.
(B) Go back, and after each paragraph, either highlight a phrase that summarize the idea of that paragraph, or write out a quick 1-sentence idea yourself.
4. Answer the following questions and submit your answers as a single word document or PDF. *NOTE: .pages file types are not accepted by Turnitin! Please use the numbers/letters to denote your answers to each question. Use complete sentences in your writing, and be sure to use in-text citations when you paraphrase or use quotations (see rubric).
1. On page 818, Andersson describes several ways that the researchers accounted for potential bias, or controlled for the effect of other variables on the study. List one of these ways, describing how the bias/variable was addressed in the study. Why do you think it was important for Andersson to account for this? 5 points
2. On page 818 (second column, last paragraph), Andersson states “Females will be selected to respond to a character only if it varies among potential mates”. (Andersson 1982). Think back to the three elements of evolution by natural selection (ENS) as discussed in class. How does this statement relate to those elements? Explain your thinking. 5 points
3. It is important to consider all possible explanations when analyzing the results of a study. Andersson argues that the results of this study are due to differences in tail length, and other factors. The author discusses multiple explanations for his results on page 819. For each of the potential explanations below, describe how Andersson argued against these ideas. Be sure to use your own words, and avoid large amounts of quoting where possible.
A. Males with shortened tails might have just been less active in their courtship behavior, or males with elongated tails were more active. 2.5 points
B. Females may have used the quality of the territory on which she nests to choose her mate in this study. 2.5 points
4. On page 819, Andersson states that a male’s sexual ornaments may reflect his overall phenotypic and genotypic quality, but that it is unknown “whether fitness in nature is heritable enough to influence female choice of mate.” (Andersson 1982). Describe a potential follow-up study Andersson could do to further investigate these ideas. In your response, be sure to address the following questions:
A. What is fitness as defined in class? 1 point
B. Describe one way to measure fitness in this species (i.e. what is something we could quantify to compare fitness among males?) 2 points
C. How do you predict fitness would compare between (a) males with artificially shortened tails (b) control males and (c) males with artificially lengthened tails? 2 points
Worth 5 points- Student accurately and sufficiently explains one of the examples of possible bias/variables as addressed in the paper. (2.5 points)
Student describes ideas about why it is important to account for bias or other variables in the study. Thoughts are logical and accurate within the scope of the course.
Worth 5 points – Student describes at least 1 element of ENS as discussed in class.
Student sufficiently and accurately discusses the relationship between the statement in Andersson (1982) and these three elements.
Worth 5 points – Statements (A) and B) are both addressed in the response. Student directly explains how Andersson (1982) argued against these possible explanations of the results. Ideas are logical, grounded in the article.
Worth 5 points- Student addresses all three parts of the question clearly and sufficiently. Student directly describes fitness, a way to quantify fitness, and makes a prediction about what the outcome might be for this study. Ideas are grounded in the article and are within the scope of the course.