Rancang Bangun Sistem Pengelolaan Service Level Agreement Berbasis Online

Abstract

1 – One of the most important factors influencing the foraging of animals is predation risk. An important choice during foraging is where to forage. Abounding patches can be dangerous, while safer patches may not yield as much. When foraging patches have an equal yield, it is assumed animals are likely to forage in patches where they feel safest. 2 – The amount of food left in the substrate when the animal leaves the area, is called giving up density (GUD). The more food is left, the more unsafe the location is thought to be. This method has been used a lot in 2D environments, but hardly in 3D-environments. Here I look into several factors deemed likely to influence this perception of safety, using bushbabies as study animals. Assuming they will spend more time foraging when they feel safer, the effort put into finding hidden food is used as a method of measurement for fear. 3 – The hypotheses under investigation are (1) that canopy cover provides this feeling of safety, as the foliage protects the bushbaby from being spotted by potential predators which would be reflected by a lower GUD, and (2) that more flight routes available to the animal would increase the perception of safety. This would result in more food eaten (low GUD) at locations with more escape routes available, such as the base of tall branches, while less time is spent foraging at places with less escape routes, such as the middle of a branch. 4 – What was actually found, using a GLM, was that canopy cover did not have significant effects on the bushbabies’ GUDs, nor did the spatial position. However, a multiple linear regression showed that both moonlight and temperature, initially recorded as co-variables, had an effect on the GUD. This effect was positive for temperature and negative for moonlight. 5 – Synthesis: Both hypotheses ((1) more canopy cover, providing the feeling of safety, would result in a lower GUD and (2) more available flight routes would result in a lower GUD) are rejected. Since bushbabies do not apparently change their behaviour according to either canopy cover or position within a tree, they seem to consider this 3D environment as “homogenously dangerous”. How dangerous this is seems to depend on moonlight, where more light results in a lower GUD. Higher temperatures had the effect of less food being eaten. For further research I would recommend looking into a possible relationship between available moonlight and visitation of places with hidden food, and also into the food preferences of bushbabies.