Optimal foraging: Describe in your own words the optimal foraging model for the effect of search time on foraging preference. In our experiment, which tray type should be preferred and why? Which variables did we use to measure foraging preference? Community structure: How did you measure biodiversity? Explain the difference between species richness and species diversity. Methods Describe field methods and how you did data analysis Field Methods Data was collected from UNCGs Peabody Park bird feeder site #3. At this site, there were two bird feeder tables next to each other with two different types of seeds. The two different types of seeds consisted of seeds with no shell and seeds with a shell. The bird feeder that contained seeds with shells had a red rope twisted around its pole while the bird feeder that did not contain shells had green rope twisted around its pole. This was done to help differentiate the two. Half of our team focused on the bird feeder that contained shells and the other half focused on the bird feeder that did not contain shells. With our team keeping a good distance from the site, binoculars and a bird species identifier handbook was used to help identify the birds from a distance. A data census sheet that contained twenty-two different bird species found in the area was provided to record our data. We kept track of what type of bird species visited which table as well as for how long the bird was foraging on the table. A stopwatch was used to keep track of the seconds each bird foraged through the seeds. The type of bird and how many seconds it visited the site were taken note of. After 30 minutes data collection was complete. The class data was combined in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and further analysis was made.All data was recorded and made into tables and graphs in Microsoft Excel. To begin data analysis, Excel was used to make various tables which were then produced into graphs. First, a master table recording the number of visitations by every observed species from each tray type for each site was made and a total was generated at the end of each column. This information was used to create the average number of bird visitations in each tray type by creating a bar graph in Excel (Figure I). The table was then sorted from largest to smallest to make graphs in the number of visitations to each tray type by species in each site (Figures III-V). For the average time in each tray type across site, another master table was made to record the average time that ex ch species spent on each tray type, which was then totaled to give the average total time birds spent in each tray at each site. A bar graph was created that contained the average time of all sites combined that all birds spent on each tray type (Figure II). Species Richness was calculated by counting the number of different species that visited each tray type in each site. For example, in Site 1, eight individual species visited the "no shells" tray. This .

1. Optimal foraging: Describe in your own words the optimal foraging model for the effect of search
time on foraging preference. In our experiment, which tray type should be preferred and why?
Which variables did we use to measure foraging preference? Community structure: How did you
measure biodiversity? Explain the difference between species richness and species diversity.
Methods Describe field methods and how you did data analysis Field Methods Data was collected
from UNCGs Peabody Park bird feeder site #3. At this site, there were two bird feeder tables next
to each other with two different types of seeds. The two different types of seeds consisted of
seeds with no shell and seeds with a shell. The bird feeder that contained seeds with shells had a
red rope twisted around its pole while the bird feeder that did not contain shells had green rope
twisted around its pole. This was done to help differentiate the two. Half of our team focused on
the bird feeder that contained shells and the other half focused on the bird feeder that did not
contain shells. With our team keeping a good distance from the site, binoculars and a bird species
identifier handbook was used to help identify the birds from a distance. A data census sheet that
contained twenty-two different bird species found in the area was provided to record our data. We
kept track of what type of bird species visited which table as well as for how long the bird was
foraging on the table. A stopwatch was used to keep track of the seconds each bird foraged
through the seeds. The type of bird and how many seconds it visited the site were taken note of.
After 30 minutes data collection was complete. The class data was combined in a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet and further analysis was made.All data was recorded and made into tables and
graphs in Microsoft Excel. To begin data analysis, Excel was used to make various tables which
were then produced into graphs. First, a master table recording the number of visitations by every
observed species from each tray type for each site was made and a total was generated at the
end of each column. This information was used to create the average number of bird visitations in
each tray type by creating a bar graph in Excel (Figure I). The table was then sorted from largest
to smallest to make graphs in the number of visitations to each tray type by species in each site
(Figures III-V). For the average time in each tray type across site, another master table was made
to record the average time that ex ch species spent on each tray type, which was then totaled to
give the average total time birds spent in each tray at each site. A bar graph was created that
contained the average time of all sites combined that all birds spent on each tray type (Figure II).
Species Richness was calculated by counting the number of different species that visited each
tray type in each site. For example, in Site 1, eight individual species visited the "no shells" tray.
This was repeated and summarized into a bar graph. Error bars were made on the graph by
calculating a 95% confidence interval by finding the standard deviation for the with shells and
without shells across all sites, incorporating n for each tray type, and selecting custom error bars.
Species diversity between trays at all sites was made by recording the number of each species of
bird that visited each site (n). A sum of visits by all birds at each tray at every site was aggregated
from totaling every number in the " n " column (N) and was used to calculate gamma, which is the
sum of (n/N)2. Species diversity (D) was then calculated by 1/ gamma. Calculation of " D " takes
into account the abundance of all individuals and snecies richnese Frmr hareaggregated from
totaling every number in the " n " column (N) and was used to calculate gamma, which is the sum
of (n/N)2. Species diversity (D) was then calculated by 1/ gamma. Calculation of "D" takes into
account the abundance of all individuals and species richness. Error bars were created using the

2. previously described methods, but with the aggregate data of the calculations of "D" (Figure VII).
The number of species and each type of species was aggregated and sorted into a new table to
find species richness and diversity between sites. Each tray type was combined in this table to
analyze the overall richness and diversity between sites instead of between tray type by site.
Species richness between sites was calculated from the sum of all species that visited each site
and finding the standard deviation, n, and 95%CI to create custom error bars, which was all
displayed in a bar graph (Figure VIII). Species diversity between sites was made a similar way by
using the aggregate data of the calculations of "D" and using the same methods as Figure VIII.
These calculations were displayed on a bar graph (Figure IX). Results "Highlighted are points for
inference for discussion portion" On average, the tray containing seeds without shells received
more visitations than the tray with seeds with shells. Birds spent more time on average in the tray
containing seeds without shells than on the tray with shells. In Site 1, the majority of observed
species visited the tray without shells more often; Grackles, Mourning doves, Blue Jays, Northern
Cardinals, House sparrows, and Woodpeckers visited the tray without shells more (Figure III). The
Chickadees at Site 1 visited both tray types equally (Figure III). Interestingly, House finches visited
the tray with shells more at Site 1 and Site 2. Also on Site 2, the Northern cardinal and Chickadee
visited the tray without shells far more than the trays with shells (Figure IV). Mourning doves and
Chickadees visited each tray type at Site 2 the same number of times (Figure IV). This is
interesting because both Mourning Doves and Grackles are larger birds: perhaps this is linked to
exposure to predation. Site 3 contained more data to analyze. Chickadees visited the sceds
without shells much more frequently than the seeds with shells (Figure V). It is important to note
that on site 3 when Grackles visited both trays, the other birds flew away and would sometimes
come back after the Grackle left or briefly visited then flew away when the grackle was feeding on
the seeds.