hunglq
Can anyone help me with this question?
I do not have the official answer.
-----
The bird species Myiobius barbatus (the bearded flycatcher), which forages in relatively dense vegetation, and Platyrinchus saturatus (the cinnamon-crested spadebill), which forages in open areas or low density vegetation, share territory in French Guiana with Thamnomanes caesius (the cinereous antshrike), which emits a loud alarm call when it detects predators. Biologist Ari Martinez and colleagues, who studied the ecological community the species share, hypothesized that there is an inverse relationship between birds' field of vision while foraging and their sensitivity to alarm calls from neighboring species
Which finding, if true, would most directly support Martinez and colleagues' hypothesis?
A. When Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls. M. barbatus and P. saturatus displayed no reaction, whereas T. caesius displayed predator-avoidance behavior.
B. Many local bird species with similar foraging habits to those of M. barbatus displayed no reaction when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas M. barbarus displayed predator -avoidance behavior.
C. Some individuals of P. saturatus displayed predator-avoidance behavior when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas nearly all did when M. barbatus alarm calls were played.
D. P. saturatus displayed no reaction when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas M. barbaris displayed predator avoidance behavior in response to the calls.
Myio forages in dense vegetation (so they have low field of vision. They cannot see very far because of trees blocking view all around).
Platy forages in open areas (so high field of vision...can see far in open areas)
Thamno emits a loud call when it detects predators
Biologists hypothesized that there is an inverse relationship between birds' field of vision while foraging and their sensitivity to alarm calls from neighboring species.What would help this hypothesis?
If Myio (low field of vision) reacted to warning calls from other species but Platy (high field of vision) did not react, then that would support our hypothesis.
A. When Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls. M. barbatus and P. saturatus displayed no reaction, whereas T. caesius displayed predator-avoidance behavior.This says that Myio and Platy both did not react to warning calls which came from other species and only Thamno reacted (to a call supposedly coming from its own members).
This does not establish any connection between the field of vision and warning calls.
B. Many local bird species with similar foraging habits to those of M. barbatus displayed no reaction when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas M. barbarus displayed predator -avoidance behavior.
Myio and Myio like species both have same field of vision (because of same foraging habits in high vegetation areas). If one reacted but the other did not, it doesn't help our hypothesis which compares high field of vision with low field of vision.
C. Some individuals of P. saturatus displayed predator-avoidance behavior when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas nearly all did when M. barbatus alarm calls were played.Here, the distinction is being made between the warning calls (Thamno's warning call vs Myio's warning call). Myio's warning call has not been discussed anywhere in the argument. We are discussing different fields of vision, not different warning calls.
D. P. saturatus displayed no reaction when Martinez and colleagues played T. caesius alarm calls, whereas M. barbaris displayed predator avoidance behavior in response to the calls.Platy did not react on Thamno's warning calls but Myio did react. This is what we were looking for. This does support our hypothesis.
Answer (D)