Please help me out with this ecology paper. I attached the “example paper” and ” paper grade rubric” for reference. I also attached ” how to write a research paper” for all the details that is needed

Please help me out with this ecology paper. I attached the “example paper” and ” paper grade rubric” for reference. I also attached ” how to write a research paper” for all the details that is needed
Ideal Free Distribution: Dispersal of Goldfish ( Carassius auratus auratus ) in Response to Patch Quality Your Name Here University of California, Santa Barbara Abstract In this study, I investigated the presence of ideal free distri bution in the goldfish Carassius auratus auratus . I hypothesize d that the fish would distribute themselves in the manner predicted by ideal free theory so that there would be equal ratios of fish to food in each patch . By providing patches of food that dif fer ed in size, I was able to observe how the fish dispersed as a resul t of the differences in profitability between food patches . I found that when I did not provide food, the fish were clumped; when the patches were of equal size, the fish distributed the mselves randomly between patches; and when one patch was larger, the fish distributed themselves in an ideal free manner by clumping on the side with more food. This dispersal pattern should help maximize the fitness of each individua l by maximizing resour ce intake, a close correlate of direct fitness. Introduction Animal distribution depends largely on the dis tribution of food. An animal will forage in the location (patch) which will offer it the maximum benefit (Milinski 1987). When patches of food diffe r in profitability, animals should distribute themselves between patches so that each individual receives equal benefit . Under these conditions, there should be an equal proportion of food to animals in e ach patch (Milinski 1987, 1988). This situation resu lts in an evol utionarily stable strategy ; if an individual does not distribute it self in this ideal manner , it will incur a cost by not obtaining the optimal amount of food and will be selected against (Milinski 1988). This type of distribution is known as idea l free distribution (IFD). Ideal free theory can be used to predict the dispersal of animals between patches. IFD depends on several assumptions of the behavior of the animals involved. The only factor in the environment to which the animals react sh ould be the food, so if they conform to IFD, they should not school in response to predation risk. In order for true ideal free distribution to occur, each individual within a patch must have the same food intake . T herefore, there can be no competition or resource guarding ; these behaviors would result in differing resource intakes between individuals and hence a different distribution . Ideal free distribution has been repo rted in a number of animals , such as three -spined sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus aculea tus ) (Milinski 1987), ducks ( Anas platyrhynchos ) (Milinski 1987), flamingoes ( Phoenicopterus ruper ) (Arengo and Baldassarre 1995), zooplankton (Daphnia hyaline x galeata ) (Lampert et al. 2003), and tadpoles ( Rana temporalis ) (Veeranagoudar et al. 2004). Fo od distribution has affected all these animals such that they conform to IFD to maximize their resource intake, but there are other factors in the environment that affect their distributions. Differences in competitive abilities may alter the ratios of ind ividuals between patches (Milinski 1987, 1988) , and predation risk can cause animals to school in order to protect themselves from predators (Ryer and Olla 1998) . In this study, I examined the effect of differences in patch quality on the distribution of goldfish ( Carassius auratus auratus ), a species of freshwater fish that originated in Asia and has been domesticated for more than 300 years. We tested whether or not goldfish conform to IFD by providing different amounts of food on either side of a tank. I predict ed that 1) when no food was provided for the fish, they would distribute themselves equally relative to the two sides of the tank and evenly relative to each other (in the absence of food, there is no resource around which they clump themselves ); 2) when even amounts of food were provided on each side of the tank, the fish would distribute themselves as in the first treatment (distributed evenly between patches) ; and 3) when we provide d three times as much food on one side of the tank than on the other side, there would be, on average, three times as many fish on the “high -food” side than on the “low -food” side. Methods We tested our fish in 35.5 L (20.125 x 10.375 x 12.125 in) tanks that had a filter on one side only . Each fish tank (N=21) containe d 10 fish. We drew a line down the center of the tank s to divide them into two sides (patches) . When food was provided for the fish, it was dropped through the hole s in the screen on the tank top . T wo experimenters dropped food simultaneously into each pat ch every thirty seconds . Observations for each treatment were taken every twenty seconds for five minutes, and five minutes were taken between treatments to allow the fish to re – establish their distributions and to consume food (if there was any in the tan k). The fish on both the filter and non -filter side were counted to determine which side had more fish. The fish were observed during three treatments: no food, even food, and uneven food. No Food Treatment : In this treatment, no food was provided; instead , we observed the fish to find what their behavior was in the absence of food. We recorded the number of fish on each side (filter or non -filter) and then determined the D -value (abs(# fish on filter side – # fish on non – filter side)) for each observation. The D -value determines where the fish are in relation to each other. We performed a (2 -tailed) binomial test on the mean values for each tank to determine whether or not the fish were exhibiting a side bias and whether or not they were clumped (determined by the D -value) . Even Food Treatment : In this treatment, e ach side of the tank received two small pellets of food every thirty seconds. The same data were recorded for this treatment as were for the no -food treatment. The same tests were also performed, a nd we added a (2-tailed ) t-test to determine the effect that the addition of even amounts of food had on the clumping of the fish. Uneven Food Treatment : Food was provided in this treatment, but six pellets were given on one side, while only two were given to the other side. After five minutes of feeding and observations, we switched which side received more food to test for a side bias. All statistical tests performed on the even -food treatment data were performed for the data collected from this treatment . Results No Food Treatment : There were 21 tanks of fish subjected to this treatment; on average, there were more fish on the filter side of the tank in nine tanks, and there were more fish on the non – filter side of the tank in 12 tanks (Figure 1) . This result was not significantly different from random (Two -tailed Binomial test, n=21, r=9, r crit =5, p>0.05) . The mean D -val ue for this treatment was 3.522. This value was greater than what would be expected if the fish were distributed randomly relative to eac h other , so the fish were clumped in this treatment (Two – tailed D -test, D obs =3.522, D crit =3.46, D obs > Dcrit ). Even Food Treatment : Out of the 21 tanks, 12 had more fish on the filter side, and nine had more fish on the non -filter side (Figure 2) . This res ult was not significantly different from random (Two -tailed Binomial test, n=21, r=9, r crit =5, p>0.05). The mean D -value was 3.113, which lies within the values that would be expected if the fish were distributed randomly relative to each other , which mean s that the fish were neither evenly distributed nor clumped (D obs =3.113, Dcrit =3.46, D obs t crit ). Discussion Our results suggest that goldfish may conform to ideal free distribution . While the fish in this study did not conform per fectly to IFD in all treatments, they began to follow that dispersal pattern by the end of the experiment. Under the no -food treatment, the fish did not show a bias towards either side of the tank. They were clumped, which is not what I expected, given th e even lack of food on each side of the tank. It is possible that the fish were schooling to defend themselves from predators. If the fish clump together, there is less of a chance that each particular individual wil l be the eaten if a predator attacks the schoo l (the dilution effect) . Without food present, there would be no incentive for the fish to leave the protection of the school (Ryer and Olla 1998). In the even -food treatment, the fish did not exhibit a bias towards either side of the tank (i.e., ei ther patch). They distributed themselves randomly with respect to each other. While the fish were no longer clumped, they were not distributed evenly as I predicted. The goldfish did not conform to IFD in this treatment; however, they were less clumped tha n they were in the fi rst treatment, so it is possible that our results represent a trend towards ideal free distribution. Under the uneven -food treatment, the fish showed a bias towards the high -food side of the tank in every trial. They were clumped on t he high -food side, which means that they altered their dispersal in response to the uneven distribution of food. Here, the goldfish did conform to ideal free distribution, meeting my prediction and supporting my hypothesis that goldfish dispersal can confo rm to IFD. This study examines the distribution of fish under different treatments of food dispersal. The results of our study support the ideal free theory because the fish had begun to conform to IFD by the end of the experiment. These fish would have b een distributing themselves in this manner because doing so would maximize their resource intake . Maximizing resource intake would likely increase their lifetime fitness by allowing them to survive to reproduce and to put the maximum amount of energy and r esources into their offspring. The goldfish did not always conform to this ideal distribution; when predation was most likely their primary concern (due to the absence of food throughout the tank ), the fish schooled to protect themselves. However, when foo d became available, the fish began to distribute themselves in an ideal free manner to increase their food intake . The behavior of these fish (and other animals which conform to IFD) is adaptive because maximizing resource intake should help maximize lifet ime fitness. Literature Cited Arengo, F. and G.A. Baldassarre. 2002. Patch choice and foraging behavior of nonbreeding American Flamingos in Yucatan, Mexico . Condor 104 (2):252 -257. Lampert, W. et al. 2003. Trade -offs in the vertical distributi on of zooplankton: ideal free distribution with costs? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B – Biological Sciences 270(1516) : 765 -773. Milinski, M. 1987. Competition for non -depleting resources: the ideal free distribution in sticklebacks. In: Fo raging Behavior (A.C. Kamil et al., eds. ), pp. 363 -388. New York: Plenum Press. Milinski, M. 1988. Games Fish Play: Making Decisions as a Social Forager. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 3(12): 325 -330. Ryer, C.H. and B.L. Olla. 1998. Shifting the balance b etween foraging and predator avoidance: the importance of food distribution for a schooling pelagic forager. Envi ronmental Biology of Fishes 52 (4):467 -475. Veeranagoudar, D.K. et al. 2004. Foraging Behavior in tadpoles of the bronze frog Rana temporalis : Experimental evidence for the ideal free distribution. Journal of Biosciences 29 (2): 201 -207. Tables and Figures Figure 1. Side of tank with majority (more than 5) of fish : Filter side (9) and Non -filter side (12). Standard Error bars re present 1 SE ±. Figure 2 . Side of tank with majority of fish: Filter side (12) and Non -filter side (9). Standard Error bars represent 1 SE ±. Side of Tank with Majority of Fish — No Food Treatment 0 5 10 15 20 Filter Side Non-Filter Side Side of Ta nk w ith Ma jority of Fish Number of Tanks Side of Tank with Majority of Fish — Even Food Treatment 0 5 10 15 20 Filter Side Non-Filter Side Side of Ta nk w ith Ma jority of Fish Number of Tanks Figure 3. Side of tank with majority of fish: High -food side (21) and low -food side (0). Standard Error b ars represent 1 SE ±. Side of Tank with Majority of Fish — Uneven Food Treatment 0 5 10 15 20 25 High Food Side Low Food Side Side of Ta nk w ith Ma jority of Fish Number of Tanks
Please help me out with this ecology paper. I attached the “example paper” and ” paper grade rubric” for reference. I also attached ” how to write a research paper” for all the details that is needed
WRITING A RESEARCH PAPER In this course you will be required to summarize one of your laboratory experiments in a format consistent with that of a published scientific journal article. This paper need not be lengthy (on the order of 5 -7 pages) but must adhere to the specific formatting guidelines set forth by journals that publish su ch articles. You should use this section as a reference while writing your paper to help avoid making common errors. In addition, you might benefit by rereading this section after you think you are finished writing your paper (but before turning it in) a nd making sure that you have met each of the requirements. The publication of scientific research is a critical contribution to our growing body of knowledge about phenomena in the natural world. Some scientists even believe that a research project is n ot worth doing if the results are not published. Published accounts of research are important because they ensure that we continue to move ahead in our quest for knowledge. They permit others to understand what is known about a topic and, perhaps more im portantly, what is left to be learned. The scientific literature is a vast collection of published articles on nearly any subject you can think of. There are specific journals for the publication of research about different topics (e.g., evolution, anima l behavior) and for research about particular groups of organisms (e.g., birds, fishes). Researchers strive to keep up with newly published articles that provide advancements in their area of study. In order to do this they must be able to identify articl es of interest to them and glean as much information from them as possible. The format you will apply when writing your research papers is designed to aid the reader in this process by providing them with a great deal of information in a concise and predi ctable fashion. After reading this section (and before writing your papers) we strongly recommend that you read several articles from recent issues of Animal Behaviour to familiarize yourself with this format. In General When writing your papers the most critical thing to remember is to be concise and to write intelligently . Avoid providing information that is irrelevant to your study or your results and remember, the goal is to provide information in a way that is easily digested, and wordiness should be avoided at all costs. Think out your ideas ahead of time and organize them in paragraphs that are tied together in an intuitive way. Write in a logical order – provide the necessary background information before discussing a complicated topic. When you think you have finished your paper spend the time needed to re -read it, deleting unnecessary words or phrases, re -writing awkward sentences, and otherwise trying to make it as short as possible without losing content. The ability to read your own writing objectively is one of the most important skills you can develop as a scientist. Though the format required for these papers may be new to you, you will also be graded on your basic writing skills and your ability to write clearly and use proper grammar. A resource you may find helpful if you would like to improve your writing skills is: Strunk, W. Jr., and E. B. White. 1979. The Elements of Style , 3rd edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York. We want you to write these articles as if you plan to submit them for publication, NOT as if they are a laboratory report for EEMB 138L, so avoid referring to the course or to “students” and “instructors”. Though there is variation among different journals, a typical manuscript consists of the following nine components: (1) Cover/Title Page, (2) Abstract, (3) Introduction, (4) Materials and Methods, (5) Results, (6) Discussion, (7) Acknowledgments, (8) Literature Cited and (9) Figures and Tables . Your paper should be turned in with each of these components in this order (except “Acknowledgements”, which should be omitted from your papers). In the published papers you will read in this course the figures and tables will be embedded within the text, usually within the results section. How ever, when those papers are submitted for publication in manuscript form, the tables and figures are positioned as described above. Please place all figures and tables after your literature cited page . Guidelines for writing each of these components are pr ovided below. An appropriate heading should precede components 2 -8. Each Figure and Table should be labeled individually (See “Figures and Tables”, below). Your papers must be typed in 12 -point font and double spaced, with sufficient margins to allow TAs to write comments. If you are concerned about conserving paper you should ask your TA if they will accept double -sided or electronic versions of your paper. Cover/Title Page The opening page of your finished product should have the title, your name, a nd your affiliation only. Creating a title for your paper may take a considerable amount of thought and should be the final step in writing your paper. It should be brief but able to stand on its own in explaining the basic biological question you are ad dressing. A good title typically includes information about (1) the organism(s) being studied (common names only), (2) the question being investigated, and (3) which variables were studied (e.g., “Female Mate Choice in Three -wattled Dodobirds: The Importa nce of Male Song Type and Plumage Color.”). A colon in the title is often helpful in separating two main ideas. You may choose to have your title reflect the results of your research (e.g., “Female Three -wattled Dodobirds Choose Mates on the Basis of Plu mage Color Rather Than Song Type”). The most common mistakes in titles are either too much detail or not enough information. If your study involved many species you should not list them each in the title. Instead, try to think of a way of describing the group as a whole. The first word in a title and all “key” words should be capitalized. Do not capitalize articles, prepositions or conjunctions (e.g., “of,” “the,” “on”). Abstract The abstract should be written after you have finished the entire paper . It is meant to be a brief synopsis of the main points of your paper, and should typically be kept to fewer than 200 words. You should start by introducing the theory relevant to your study, and then discuss the objectives of your study and the specific question(s) you are addressing. Briefly discuss your approach. Was your study experimental or was it observational? Do not provide every detail of your study design but give the reader a basic idea of how you answered your question(s). Finally, state the important results and conclusions in the order they appear in the body of your paper. DO NOT discuss the statistical results of each test you performed. Focus instead on stating the important findings, or trends, as they pertain to the theory addresse d. You may choose to include a closing sentence that summarizes how your results contribute to the particular body of theory with which your study is concerned. If you give the common name of an organism in the abstract it should be followed by its sci entific name in parentheses. DO NOT use citations or make reference to tables or figures in the abstract. Your goal is to convey to the reader the most important findings of your research so they may determine if it is of interest to them. Introduction Theoretical background : The purpose of the introduction is to inform the reader of the significance of your research and to describe the question(s) it addresses. Every carefully planned and executed study provides information about some branch of theory . In your study you likely proposed a hypothesis about the way organisms should behave if they are acting to maximize their fitness, as the theory of natural selection predicts they should. Depending on the specific topic of your study, you may have draw n from additional bodies of theory such as sexual selection, optimal foraging, parental investment or others. As such, the results of your research are likely to provide insights about these theories. You should begin your introduction by providing the t heoretical background relevant to your research . Discuss the background as it pertains to your study, citing references as necessary (for a complete description of procedures for citing references, refer to “Literature Cited”, below in this section). Previous research : After the theoretical background has been introduced you should summarize previous research that has dealt with this topic. What is known? What remains to be discovered? Are there specific hypotheses that have been put forth previously about this theory? Have they been supported? You should focus on previous studies that relate to the specific hypothesis (es) you plan to test. If you are testing a hypothesis that has already been tested you should discuss that research, but only the parts that pertain to your study. Do not take up valuable space with irrelevant information. For each paper you write in this class you will be provided with several published studies to use as a baseline of work that is relevant to your experiment. The se will get you started, but you must find additional articles on your own to fill in missing information and to ensure you are aware of recent advances in the field . This is an important part of the introduction because it puts your research in perspecti ve for the reader. If it is written correctly it should lead the reader into the following section, where you discuss the specific contribution(s) of your study. Study Design : After you have finished discussing the previous research that is relevant to your study you should state the specific goals of your research. What hypothesis (es) will you test? What system will you use in your study? How will you execute it? You might find it helpful to start this section off with a sentence or two that gives a general idea of what your study entails (e.g., “I investigated the effects of male plumage color and song type on female mate choice in the Three -wattled Dodobird.”). You should follow by describing the important aspects of your study species that make them suitable for this study. If your study is about mate choice in birds you should provide relevant information about their mating system or other characteristics of importance in your study (i.e., male plumage color and song types) and avoid irrelevant information such as migration behavior or territorial interactions on wintering grounds. After you have introduced your study species/system you are free to discuss the specific hypothesis, or hypotheses (plural), and how your study will contribute to the body of knowledge introduced in the preceding paragraphs. You should state your hypothesis (es) clearly here because this information is what the remainder of your paper will be centered around. When discussing your study’s contributions it is critic al that you do not try to make it more important than it is. In this course we are concerned with providing you with a basic understanding of the principles of animal behavior. As a result, our experiments are simple and are not aimed at providing “groun dbreaking” information. They are designed to provide additional support for theories or hypotheses that have received support from prior research. It is always important to understand the limits of the research you are conducting, and to keep these limits in mind when you state the contributions of your study. Now you are ready to discuss your study objectives. You should NOT describe the precise methods of your experiment here (that information comes in the Materials and Methods section). Simply prov ide enough information about your study’s design so that the reader will understand why you have made the predictions you have made – which is the next step. Each of your predictions should be stated explicitly and should be intuitive from your hypothesis and the description of your study’s design. This portion of the introduction needs to be written very carefully – when the reader is finished with it they should be eager to get to the Results section to discover whether or not your predictions were uphe ld. NEVER discuss results in the Introduction. Ideally, the Introduction could be written before the experiment is carried out. However, it is usually helpful to amend the Introduction after you have executed your experiments. Materials and Method s In this section you should provide the details of how the study was conducted. The idea behind this section is to provide the reader with enough information so that they could replicate your study and (theoretically) attain the same results. Any aspect that may have affected your results, such as distance between observer and subject during observations, should be detailed in this section. You should include descriptions of the study site, experimental design (if any), data collection, data organization and data analysis (including statistical procedures used). You may choose to include subsections for each of these within this section. Study Site : If field work was conducted provide a description of the study area, including its location, habitat an d climate. When you give the location you should provide enough information to allow a reader to find it, even if they are from another region of the country, or the world. You should also provide details about the specific population of organisms you ar e studying. If the study was conducted in a lab you should provide its location and the facilities pertinent to the study. Experimental Design : If your study is experimental you should provide every detail of your experimental design. This typically c onsists of a description of control and experimental treatments to which you have subjected your study organisms. Discuss any techniques or equipment used in the experiments. Do not describe the use of standard equipment, but provide details of any origi nal procedures implemented. Data Collection : Provide all details of how and when the data were collected, including any factors that may have influenced subject behavior or data quality. What equipment was used? Were the observers qualified? If more tha n one observer, were the measurements subjective? What were the weather conditions during data collection? Give the dates and times over which observations were made. Times should be given in 24 -hour format, e.g., 0500h (5:00 AM), or 1800h (6:00 PM). T ell the reader what raw data were collected in this subsection. Data Organization : Raw data are seldom presented in research papers. Instead, the data are typically summarized in some fashion. It is often difficult to infer how a researcher attained the data they are presenting from a description of the raw data they collected. In this subsection you should provide a sufficient description of your data summarization process to allow the reader to fully interpret the data you will present. Data Analys is: Here you should describe the statistical procedures used to analyze your results. You do not need to refer to each analysis performed one by one. Instead it is often helpful to state that a certain test was used for a certain type of comparison (e.g. “a t -test was used for all comparisons of tail length between groups of males”), which may apply to a number of tests that you carry out in your Results section. In addition, you should state the circumstances in which one or two -tailed tests were used, and provide a justification for that decision (e.g., “two -tailed t – tests were used for tail length comparisons between males of different plumage colors because there was no a priori prediction about the direction of the difference”). If a one -tailed test is used you may need to cite a reference to justify your decision (e.g., “one -tailed t -tests were used for all comparisons of tail length between successfully breeding males and those that were unsuccessful because Frank et al. (1999) demonstrated in a cl osely related species that males with higher breeding success also have longer tails.”). You should clarify the critical alpha -level used in your tests to determine whether or not results of statistical tests are significant (in this course we will always set alpha at 0.05). Explanations of common statistical tests are unnecessary because they can be found elsewhere. However, if you use any novel statistical procedures these should be explained in detail in this section. NEVER discuss results in the Materials and Methods section. Tables may be used to summarize general information about your study species or the study sites you used. Figures may be used to demonstrate graphically any theoretical (predicted) relationships. Results In this sectio n you should present your results, including any observed trends or patterns that are relevant to your study, and indicate what your statistical tests tell you about them. Your predictions should have been designed with the statistical tests in mind, but w hen you present your results you should be impartial in regard to your expectations. DO NOT attempt to interpret your results or attribute any meaning to them in this section. Remember, statistics are designed to attribute significance to an observed res ult; statistics alone ARE NOT results. A good “recipe” for describing a result is to first describe the pattern and refer the reader to a table or figure that provides the data: 1. “We found ‘wailing’ males comprised a larger proportion of successfully breeding males than did ‘cackling’ males (Table 1).” If the data do not fit well in a table or figure then you should include them in the text. Next, indicate what the statistics tell you about this result, providing the details of the test results in parentheses afterward: 2. “The ratio of successful “wailing” and “cackling” males was found to be significantly different from random (Two -tailed binomial test: n=61, r=10, r crit =22, p<0.05).” Note that the statistical result is phrased in regard to what the specific statistical test is designed to tell you. The binomial test is designed to determine the likelihood of attaining a given observed ratio if the true ratio in the population is 50:50 (random). A poor choice of wording for this result wou ld be one that does not reflect the design of the statistical test: (POOR) 3. “ ‘Wailing’ males had significantly more breeding success than ‘cackling’ males (Two -tailed binomial test: n=61, r=10, r crit =22, p2 times bill size: 3 WHICH NESTLING IS FED / PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL VOLUME THAT EACH FEED CONSISTS OF ( % NESTLING # ): Do your best to keep track of the nestlings and keep them separate. The cowbird is the most obvious nestling because its mouth is significantly larger than the other two nestlings. A feed is defined as any time a parent places food in a nestling’s mo uth and it is ingested by that nestling* (see “Offers and Removed Feeds” under “Other notes of importance” below). Since parents sometimes divide their food load among more than one nestling during a visit, we will estimate the percentage of the total load they fed that goes to each nestling. Thus, we can later calculate the actual food load in each individual feed (% X total load = volume of food in the feed). This is only meant to be a rough estimate, so don’t try to estimate it to the nearest single perc entage. An estimate to the nearest 10% will suffice for our purposes. You should record this percentage value in the appropriate column: for example, if the largest nestling receives 50% of the food, you should score a 50 in the column “% Nestling 1″. OTHER NOTES OF IMPORTANCE: Fecal sacs : You will occasionally witness the excretion of fecal sacs by the nestlings. This phenomenon is an evolutionary adaptation of many birds whose young spend a significant amount of time in the nest (altricial birds). Feces leave the nestling contained within a sac, which helps to keep the nest clean and free of disease. Parents often remove these fecal sacs after they feed the nestlings, sometimes flying away with them and sometimes consuming them. The consumption of f ecal sacs may provide parents with an additional energy source at a time when their energetic output is very high. Load Splitting : On some occasions, one parent will not feed the entire load that they bring. Usually it is the male who divides his food wi th the female before they each distribute their respective portions among nestlings. Remember to record the food load value for the amount FED, and not the amount of food BROUGHT. Offers and Removed Feeds : It may appear at times that a parent feeds a ne stling but they come away with the same amount of food and the nestling does not appear to be ingesting anything. This is referred to as an “offer” and should not be counted as a feed. Offers usually happen when a nestling stops begging (closes its mouth) as a parent moves to feed it, or does not immediately make an effort to grasp the food the parent is giving it. Additionally, parents will sometimes place food in a nestling’s mouth, and will subsequently remove it because it is not being ingested. These “removed feeds” should likewise not be counted as a feed. Both of these behaviors probably ensure that food items go to the nestling that needs nourishment the most.