A

term paper on

PREDATION

By

Jonathan Odafe Eveso

Course code: WRM 717

Course title: Animal Ethology

Lecturer in charge: Dr. Alarape

Department of wildlife and Ecotourism Management

University of Ibadan

1

November 2014TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - 1

TYPES OF PREDATION - - - - - - - - 1

Social predation - - - - - - - -1

Size-selective predation - - - - - - -2

PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONSHIP - - - - - - -3

SPECIALIZATION - - - - - - - - - 4

TROPHIC LEVEL (FOOD CHAIN) - - - - - - -5

ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF PREDATORS - - - - - - 6

PREY SWITCHING - - - - - - - - - 6

PREDATION SEQUENCE - - - - - - - - 7

ANTI-PREDATOR ADAPTATION - - - - - - - 8

Camouflage - - - - - - - - -8

Mimicry - - - - - - - - - 8

Aggression - - - - - - - - -9

2

Mobbing behavior - - - - - - - -9

Advertising unprofitability - - - - - -10

Chemical defence - - - - - - - -11

Terrain fear factor - - - - - - - -11

Predator satiation - - - - - - - -11

FACTORS AFFECRING PREDATION - - - - - - 12

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - -

13

INTRODUCTION

In ecology, predation is a biological interaction where a

predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the

organism that is attacked)(Begon et al., 1996) Predators may or

may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of

predation often results in the death of its prey and the eventual

absorption of the prey's tissue through consumption (Getz, 2011).

The key characteristic of predation however is the predator's

direct impact on the prey population.

A true predator can commonly be known as one that kills and eats

another living thing. Whereas other types of predator all harm

3

their prey in some way, this form kills them. Predators may hunt

actively for prey, or sit and wait for prey to approach within

striking distance, as in ambush predators. Some predators kill

large prey and dismember or chew it prior to eating it, such as a

jaguar or a human; others may eat their (usually much smaller)

prey whole, as does a bottlenose dolphin swallowing a fish, or a

snake, duck or stork swallowing a frog. Some animals that kill

both large and small prey for their size (domestic cats and dogs

are prime examples) may do either depending upon the

circumstances; either would devour a large insect whole but

dismember a rabbit. Some predation entails venom that subdues a

prey creature before the predator ingests the prey by killing,

which the box jellyfish does, or disabling it, found in the

behavior of the cone shell. In some cases, the venom, as in

rattlesnakes and some spiders, contributes to the digestion of

the prey item even before the predator begins eating. In other

cases, the prey organism may die in the mouth or digestive system

of the predator

TYPES OF PREDATION

Social predation offers the possibility of predators to kill

creatures larger than those that members of the species could

overpower singly. Lions, hyenas, wolves, dholes, African wild

dogs, and piranhas can kill large herbivores that single animals

of the same species could never dispatch. Social predation allows

some animals to organize hunts of creatures that would easily

4

escape a single predator; thus chimpanzees can prey upon colobus

monkeys, and Harris's Hawks can cut off all possible escapes for

a doomed rabbit. Extreme specialization of roles is evident in

some hunting that requires co-operation between predators of very

different species: humans with the aid of falcons or dogs, or

fishing with cormorants. Social predation is often very complex

behavior, and not all social creatures (for example, domestic

cats) perform it. Even without complex intelligence but instinct

alone, some ant species can destroy much larger creatures.

Size-selective predation involves predators preferring prey of a

certain size. Large prey may prove troublesome for a predator,

while small prey might prove hard to find and in any case provide

less of a reward. This has led to a correlation between the size

of predators and their prey (Murdoch, 1969). Size may also act as

a refuge for large prey, for example adult elephants are, in

general, safe from predation by lions, but juveniles are

vulnerable.(Molles, 2002).

5

Plate 1: A leopard (predator) killing a duiker (the prey)Source: wikipaedia.com

PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONSHIP

Predators can affect prey populations and communities by direct

predator-induced mortality or by direct and indirect effects on

prey behaviors and life histories (Sih 1987,Strauss 1991). For

example, predators can have indirect community level effects

(“top-down” cascading trophic effects) if reducing prey abundance

increases resources used by prey (Carpenter et al. 1987, Power

1990). Alternatively, predators can have direct but non-lethal

effects on prey populations through predator-induced changes in

prey behavior or life history (Peckarsky et al.1993, 2002). In

this case interactions between predators and prey that do not

result in prey death can have negative consequences on prey

population growth (McPeek and Peckarsky 1998). This may occur if

predator-avoidance behavior is costly to prey in terms of lost

feeding time, shifting to unfavorable food patches, or shifting

to less favorable feeding times (Peckarsky 1996). Alternatively,

prey may alter their development to reduce exposure to dangerous

predators (Crowl and Covich 1990, Peckarskyet al.2001). Thus, the

impacts of predators in streams can be studied from two general

perspectives:

6

(1) effects of predator-induced mortality on prey populations and

communities and

(2) consequences of anti-predatory behavior and life histories on

prey fitness and prey population growth.

The effects of predators often depend on whether predators are

selective (i.e., consume certain prey types disproportionate to

their abundance). Community ecologists are interested in whether

selective predation alters the relative abundance of prey, which

often has indirect effects on other components of communities

(Connell 1975, Paine 1966).

Selective predation may result from concentration of predator

search in the preferred habitat of the prey, selection of prey

types most frequently encountered, active rejection of some

encountered prey individuals, or differential prey vulnerability

(Allan and Flecker 1988, Fuller and Rand 1990, Greene 1985, Sih

1987). These alternative mechanisms of selective predation can be

differentiated by measuring predator-prey encounter rates,

attacks per encounter, and captures per attack, which are the

major components of the predator-prey interaction (Peckarsky et

al.1994).

The relationship between predators and their prey is complex and

subject to many variables. There are two general schools of

thought about the role predators play in ecosystem management:

Ecosystems work from the (1) top down (predator-driven) or from

the (2) bottom up (prey-driven).

7

Those who support and use predator control measures are

implementing the top down theory. That is, if predators are

removed, prey (game) species will increase. Those who believe in

the bottom up idea support habitat manipulation over predator

control. Both management strategies can be supported by various

studies. Sometimes a predator may be a "keystone species," which

means that it plays a disproportionate role in the ecosystem. If

it is removed, other species will be affected. A predator may

affect other species (prey or predator) either directly or

indirectly. For example, if coyotes are removed from a site for a

long period of time there may be increased deer fawn survival

(direct influence), but the absence of coyotes may also increase

the populations of nest predators such as gray foxes and feral

cats, which could cause the quail population to decline (indirect

influence).

SPECIALIZATION

Among predators there is a large degree of specialization. Many

predators specialize in hunting only one species of prey. Others

are more opportunistic and will kill and eat almost anything

(examples: humans, leopards, dogs and alligators). The

specialists are usually particularly well suited to capturing

their preferred prey. The prey in turn, are often equally suited

to escape that predator. This is called an evolutionary arms race

and tends to keep the populations of both species in equilibrium.

Some predators specialize in certain classes of prey, not just

8

single species. Some will switch to other prey (with varying

degrees of success) when the preferred target is extremely

scarce, and they may also resort to scavenging

TROPHIC LEVEL (FOOD CHAIN)

Predators are often another organism's prey, and likewise prey

are often predators. Though blue jays prey on insects, they may

in turn be prey for cats and snakes, and snakes may be the prey

of hawks. One way of classifying predators is by trophic level.

Organisms that feed on autotrophs, the producers of the trophic

pyramid, are known as herbivores or primary consumers; those that

feed on heterotrophs such as animals are known as secondary

consumers. Secondary consumers are a type of carnivore, but there

are also tertiary consumers eating these carnivores, quartary

consumers eating them, and so forth. Because only a fraction of

energy is passed on to the next level, this hierarchy of

predation must end somewhere, and very seldom goes higher than

five or six levels, and may go only as high as three trophic

levels (for example, a lion that preys upon large herbivores such

as wildebeest, which in turn eat grasses). A predator at the top

of any food chain (that is, one that is preyed upon by no

organism) is called an apex predator; examples include the orca,

sperm whale, anaconda, Komodo dragon, tiger, lion, tiger shark,

Nile crocodile, and most eagles and owls—and even omnivorous

humans and grizzly bears. An apex predator in one environment may

9

not retain this position as a top predator if introduced to

another habitat, such as a dog among alligators, a skunk in the

presence of the Great Horned Owl immune to skunk spray, or a

snapping turtle among jaguars; a predatory species introduced

into an area where it faces no predators, such as a domestic cat

or a dog in some insular environments, can become an apex

predator by default.

Many organisms (of which humans are prime examples) eat from

multiple levels of the food chain and, thus, make this

classification problematic. A carnivore may eat both secondary

and tertiary consumers, and its prey may itself be difficult to

classify for similar reasons. Organisms showing both carnivory

and herbivory are known as omnivores. Even herbivores such as the

giant panda may supplement their diet with meat. Scavenging of

carrion provides a significant part of the diet of some of the

most fearsome predators. Carnivorous plants would be very

difficult to fit into this classification, producing their own

food but also digesting anything that they may trap. Organisms

that eat detritivores or parasites would also be difficult to

classify by such a scheme.

ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF PREDATORS

Predators may increase the biodiversity of communities by

preventing a single species from becoming dominant. Such

predators are known as keystone species and may have a profound

influence on the balance of organisms in a particular ecosystem10

(Dawkins, 2004). Introduction or removal of this predator, or

changes in its population density, can have drastic cascading

effects on the equilibrium of many other populations in the

ecosystem. For example, grazers of a grassland may prevent a

single dominant species from taking over (Botkin and Keller,

2003).

PREY SWITCHING

Prey switching is a term used to describe the situation where a

predator eats disproportionately more of the most common type of

prey (Murdoch, 1969). One of the ways prey switching has been

identified and defined is when a predator's “preference” for a

particular type of prey increases as the prey increase in

abundance. The result is a strong preference for prey which are

common in the environment and a weak preference for prey which

are rare. The definition of preference will therefore impact on

understanding switching.

The most common definition of preference is the relationship

between the ratio of prey in the environment and the ratio of

prey in a predator's diet. It has been independently proposed a

number of times and is described by the equation:

P1/P2 = c (N1/N2);

alternatively, c = (P1/P2)/(N1/N2)

11

where N1 and N2 are the abundance of prey types 1 and 2 in theenvironment and

P1 and P2 are the abundances of the same prey types in thepredator's diet.

c is the preference for prey type 1.

If the value of c increases over time with N1/N2, prey switching

is presumed to occur. The opposite of prey switching is when a

predator eats disproportionately more of the most rare prey than

would be expected by chance. From the equation above this would

occur when c (preference) decreases over time as N1/N2 (amount in

the environment) increases. This opposite phenomenon has been

called negative prey switching, or anti-apostatic selection when

it refers to the choice between different morphs.

If a predator displays prey switching behaviour it can have a

large effect on the stability of the system, coexistence of prey

species, and evolutionary diversification. Prey switching can

promote coexistence between prey species (Abrams and Matsuda,

2003).

The formation of a search image may also lead to the

consumer switching which prey it eats (Hughes and Croy,

1993)

The location and timing of when a consumer feeds can account

for switching behaviour.

12

Prey switching may also occur if the consumer becomes more

efficient at capturing the most common type of prey, for

example increased practice at capturing the most common prey

(Bergelson, 1985).

PREDATION SEQUENCE

The act of predation can be broken down into a maximum of four

stages: Detection of prey, attack, capture and finally

consumption (Alcock, 1998). The relationship between predator and

prey is one that is typically beneficial to the predator, and

detrimental to the prey species. Sometimes, however, predation

has indirect benefits to the prey species (Bondavalli and

Ulanowicz, 1999) though the individuals preyed upon themselves do

not benefit (Dawkins, 2004) This means that, at each applicable

stage, predator and prey species are in an evolutionary arms race

to maximize their respective abilities to obtain food or avoid

being eaten. This interaction has resulted in a vast array of

adaptations in both groups.

ANTI-PREDATOR ADAPTATION

1. CAMOUFLAGE

One adaptation helping both predators and prey avoid detection is

camouflage, a form of crypsis where species have an appearance

that helps them blend into the background. Camouflage consists of

not only color but also shape and pattern. The background upon

which the organism is seen can be both its environment (e.g., the

13

praying mantis to the right resembling dead leaves) or other

organisms (e.g., zebras' stripes blend in with each other in a

herd, making it difficult for lions to focus on a single target).

The more convincing camouflage is, the more likely it is that the

organism will go unseen

2. MIMICRY

Mimicry is a related phenomenon where an organism has a similar

appearance to another species. One such example is the drone fly,

which looks a lot like a bee, yet is completely harmless as it

cannot sting at all. Another example of batesian mimicry is the

io moth, (Automeris io), which has markings on its wings that

resemble an owl's eyes. When an insectivorous predator disturbs

the moth, it reveals its hind wings, temporarily startling the

predator and giving it time to escape. Predators may also use

mimicry to lure their prey, however. Female fireflies of the

genus Photuris, for example, copy the light signals of other

14

species, thereby attracting male fireflies, which are then

captured and eaten (Lloyd, 1965).

3. AGGRESSION

Predatory animals often use their usual methods of attacking prey

to inflict or to threaten grievous injury to their own predators.

The electric eel uses the same electrical current to kill prey

and to defend itself against animals (anacondas, caimans,

jaguars, egrets, cougars, giant otters, humans, and dogs) that

ordinarily prey upon fish similar to an electric eel in size; the

electric eel thus remains an apex predator in a predator-rich

environment. A predator small enough to be prey for others, the

domestic cat uses its formidable teeth and claws as weapons

against animals that might confuse a cat with easier prey. Many

non-predatory prey animals, such as a zebra, can give a strong

kick that can maim or kill, while others charge with tusks or

horns.

4. MOBBING BEHAVIOR

Mobbing behavior occurs when members of a species drive away

their predator by cooperatively attacking or harassing it. Most

frequently seen in birds, mobbing is also seen in other social

animals. For example, nesting gull colonies are widely seen to

attack intruders, including humans(Alcock, 1998). Costs of

mobbing behavior include the risk of engaging with predators, as

15

well as energy expended in the process, but it can aid the

survival of members of a species.

While mobbing has evolved independently in many species, it tends

to be present only in those whose young are frequently preyed on,

especially birds. It may complement cryptic behavior in the

offspring themselves, such as camouflage and hiding. Mobbing

calls may be made prior to or during engagement in harassment.

Mobbing can be an interspecies activity: it is common for birds

to respond to mobbing calls of a different species. Many birds

will show up at the sight of mobbing and watch and call, but not

participate. It should also be noted that some species can be on

both ends of a mobbing attack. Crows are frequently mobbed by

smaller songbirds as they prey on eggs and young from these

birds' nests, but these same crows will cooperate with smaller

birds to drive away hawks or larger mammalian predators. On

occasion, birds will mob animals that pose no threat.

5. ADVERTISING UNPROFITABILITY

Stotting is jumping into the air with the legs straight and stiff,

and the white rear fully visible. Stotting is maladaptive for

outrunning predators; evidence suggests that stotting signals an

unprofitable chase. For example, cheetahs abandon more hunts when

the gazelle stots, and in the event they do give chase, they are

far less likely to make a kill (Caro, 1986).

16

Aposematism, where organisms are brightly colored as a warning to

predators, is the antithesis of camouflage. Some organisms pose a

threat to their predators—for example they may be poisonous, or

able to harm them physically. Aposematic coloring involves

bright, easily recognizable and unique colors and patterns. For

example, bright coloration in Variable Checkerspot butterflies

leads to decreased predation attempts by avian predators.(Bowers,

Brown, and Wheye, 1985) Upon being harmed (e.g., stung) by their

prey, the appearance in such an organism will be remembered as

something to avoid. While that particular prey organism may be

killed, the coloring benefits the prey species as a whole.

Domestic cats, animals similar in size to such prey species as

rabbits, make a hissing sound reminiscent of a snake, advertising

that they can put up formidable defenses for their size. Such can

deter confrontations harmful to both the cat and to an animal in

search of small animals as prey.

6. CHEMICAL DEFENSE

Some organisms have evolved chemical weapons that are effective

deterrents against predation. It is most common in insects, but

the skunk is a particularly dramatic mammalian example. Other

examples include the Bombardier beetle, which can accurately

shoot a predator with a stream of boiling poison, the Pacific

beetle cockroach, which sprays a quinone mixture from modified

spiracles, or the Ornate Moth, which acquires toxins from its

larval food plant that deter most of its predators(Conner, 2009)17

7. TERRAIN FEAR FACTOR

The "terrain fear factor" is an idea that assesses the risks

associated with predator/prey encounters. This idea suggests that

prey will change their usual habits to adjust to the terrain and

its effect on the species' predation. For example, a species may

forage in a terrain with a lower predation risk as opposed to one

with high predation risk (Ripple and Beschta, 2004)

8. PREDATOR SATIATION

Also called predator saturation. It is an anti-predator

adaptation in which prey occur at high population densities,

reducing the probability of an individual organism being eaten

(Molles, 2002). When predators are flooded with potential prey,

they can consume only a certain amount, so by occurring at high

densities prey benefit from a safety in numbers effect. This

strategy has evolved in a diverse range of prey, including

notably many species of plants, insects, and fish. Predator

satiation can be considered a type of refuge from predators.

(Molles, 2002).

FACTORS AFFECTING PREDATION

18

The effect of predation on wildlife varies over time and is

influenced by both natural and human-induced conditions.

A short-term over-abundance of predators can occur if a primary

prey species (for example, rabbits for coyotes) increases

dramatically and then suddenly and sharply declines. Hungry

predators will then prey more on other prey species.

Changes in habitat can cause prey to concentrate in certain

areas, making them easier to catch. Roads, power line rights-of-

way and large areas where brush has been cleared are examples of

human-induced habitat changes.

19

REFERENCES

Abrams, P.A. and Matsuda, H. (2003) Population dynamicalconsequences of reduced predator switching at low total preydensities. Popul. Ecol. 45, 175-185.

Alcock, J. (1998). Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (6thedition). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, Inc..

Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1988. Preference in stoneflies:A comparative analysis of prey vulnerability. Oecologia76:496–503

Begon, M., Townsend, C., Harper, J. (1996). Ecology: Individuals,populations and communities (Third edition). Blackwell Science,London.

Bergelson, J.M. (1985) A mechanistic interpretation of preyselection by Anax junius larvae (Odenata: Aeschnidae). Ecology66, 1699-1705

Bondavalli C., Ulanowicz R.E. (1999). "Unexpected effects ofpredators upon their prey: The case of the American alligator".Ecosystems 2: 49–63..

Botkin, D. and E. Keller (2003). Enrivonmental Science: Earth as a livingplanet. John Wiley & Sons.. P.2.

Bowers, M. D., Irene L. Brown, and Darryl Wheye. "Bird Predationas a Selective Agent in a Butterfly Population." Evolution 39.1(1985): 93-103.

20

Caro T. M. (1986). "The functions of stotting in Thomson'sgazelles: Some tests of the predictions". Animal Behaviour 34 (3):663–684..

Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell, J. R. Hodgson, P. A. Cochran,J. J. Elser, M. M. Elser, D. M. Lodge, D. Dretchmer, X. He, andC. N. von Ende. 1987. Regulation of lake primary productivity byfood web structure. Ecology 68:1863–1876.

Connell, J. H. 1975. Some mechanisms producing structure innatural communities: A model and evidence from field experiments.Pages 460–490 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond (Eds.)Ecology andEvolution of Communities. Belknap Press of Harvard University,Cambridge, MA

Conner, W.E. (2009). Tiger Moths and Woolly Bears—behaviour, ecology, andevolution of the Arctiidae. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–10.

Crowl, T. A., and A. P. Covich. 1990. Predator-induced life-history shifts in a freshwater snail.Science 247:949–51

Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fuller, R. L., and P. S. Rand. 1990. Influence of substrate typeon vulnerability of prey to predaceous aquatic insects. Journalof the North American Benthological Society9:1–8

Getz, W. (2011). Biomass transformation webs provide a unifiedapproach to consumer–resource modelling. Ecology Letters,.

Godfray, H.C.J. (1994). Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology.Princeton University Press, Princeton.. P. 20.

Holling, C.S., 1959. The components of predation as revealed by astudy of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly.Canadian Journal of Entomology 91, 293–320.

Hughes, R.N. and Croy, M.I. (1993) An experimental analysis offrequency-dependent predation (Switching) in the 15-spinesStickleback, Spinachia spinachia. J. Anim. Ecol. 62, 341-352.

21

Lloyd J.E. (1965). "Aggressive Mimicry in Photuris: FireflyFemmes Fatales". Science 149 (3684): 653–654..

McPeek, M. A., and B. L. Peckarsky. 1998. Life histories and thestrengths of species interactions: Combining mortality, growth,and fecundity effects.Ecology79:867–879.

Molles, Manuel C., Jr. (2002). Ecology: Concepts and Applications(International ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..

Murdoch,W.W. (1969) Switching in generalist predators:experiments on prey specificity and stability of preypopulations. Ecol. Monogr. 39, 335–354

Paine, R. T. 1966. Food web complexity and speciesdiversity.American Naturalist100:65–75.

Peckarsky B. L., B. W. Taylor, A. R. McIntosh, M. A. McPeek, andD. A. Lytle. 2001. Variation in mayfly size at metamorphosis as adevelopmental response to risk of predation.Ecology82:740–757.

Peckarsky, B. L. 1996. Alternative predator-avoidance syndromesof stream-dwelling mayflies. Ecology 77:1888–1905

Peckarsky, B. L., A. R. McIntosh, B. R. Taylor, and J. Dahl.2002. Predator chemicals induce changes in mayfly life historytraits: A whole-stream manipulation. Ecology83:612–618.

Peckarsky, B. L., C.A. Cowan, and C. R. Anderson. 1994.Consequences and plasticity of the specialized predatory behaviorof stream-dwelling stonefly larvae.Ecology75:166–181

Ripple William J., Beschta Robert L. (2004). "Wolves and theecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems?".BioScience 54 (8): 755–66

Sih, A. 1987. Predators and prey lifestyles: An evolutionary andecological overview. Pages 203–224 in C. W. Kerfoot and A. Sih(Eds.)Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on AquaticCommunities. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.

22

Strauss, S. Y. 1991. Indirect effects in community ecology: Theirdefinition, study and importance.Trends in Ecology andEvolution6:206–209

William J. Ripple and Robert L. Beschta. "Wolves and the Ecologyof Fear: Can Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems?" 2004.

CLASSIFICATION OF 20 WILD AMINALS BASED ON THE NAME OFDIFFERENT SEXES, YOUNG, GROUP, AND CALL/SOUND THEY

MAKE.23

BY

JONATHAN ODAFE EVESO

A

COURSE : WRM 717(Animal Ethology)Assignment

LECTURER IN CHARGE : DR Alarape

Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management

Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry

University of Ibadan

Ibadan, Nigeria.

November 2014

24

LIONPanthero leo

Male: Lion

Female: Lioness

Young: cubs

Sound : roaring

Gestation: 110 days

Group: pride

FOSSACryptoprocta ferox

Young: cubs 

Male: Male

Female: Female

Young: Pup

Group: Troop

Gestation:  90 days  

GIANT STRIPED MONGOOSE

Galidictis grandidieri

Male: Male

Female: Female

Young: Pup

Group: Mongaggle

Gestation:. 72-105 days

Sound:

GREATER FLAMINGO Phoenicopterus roseus

Male: Cock

Female: Hen

Young: Chick

Group: Colony, Flamboyance,Flurry, Regiment, Stand

Gestation: incubation for 27-31 days.

GREY WOLF Canis lupus

Male: Wolf

Female: Bitch

Young: Pup

Group: Pack

Sound: Howl

Gestation: 63 days

HERRING GULL Larus argentatus

Male: Cock

Female: Hen

25

Young: Chick

Group: Flock, Colony

Gestation: incubation for 28-30 days ,

Sound

RED DEER Cervus elaphus

Male: stag, hart, buck

Female: hind, doe

Young: fawn

Group: herd, mob

Gestation period: 240-260 days

Sound: roaring

RED KANGAROO Macropus rufus

Male: boomer, jack, buck

Female: doe, jill, flyer

Young: joey

Group: mob

Gestation: 33 days

Sound: hissing

AFRICAN BUFFALO Syncerus caffer

Male: bull

Female: cow

Young: calf

Group: herd

Gestation: 11.5 months

Sound: roar, bellow

ADDER Vipera berus

Male: Male snake

Female: female snake

Young: hatcling

Group: nest

Gestation period:

Sound: hissing

GIRAFEGiraffa camelopardalis

Male: Male

Female: female

Young: calf

Group: Herd

26

Gestation: 400-460 days

Sound: bellowing, snores,hiss, moan and makesflute-like sound, snorts,bleats, mooing and mewingsounds

LEOPARD

Panthera pardus

Male: male

Female: female

Young: cubs

Group: pride

Gestation period: 90 to 105 days

Sound: grunts, roars, growls,meows, and purrs

ELEPHANTLoxodonta africana

Males: bull

Females: cow

Young: calf

Group: herd

Gestation: 20-22 months

Sound:trumpeting, infrasound,and seismiccommunication

JAGUAR

Panthera onca

Male: male jaguar

Female: female jaguar

Young: cubs

Group:

Gestation: 93–105 days

Sound: roaring, mews andgrunts

ANUBIS BABOONPapio Anubis

Male: male

Female: female

Young: young

Group: troop

Gestation: 4-5 months

Sound: basic grunt, roar grunt, lough bark

cough geck, Shrill barks, pant-grunts, broken grunting,

MONA MONKEYCercopithecus mona

Male: male

27

Female: female

Young: young

Group: troop

Gestation: 5-6 months

Sound:

WHITE-THROATED MONKEYCercopithecus erythrogaster

Male: male

Female: female

Young: young

Group: troop

Gestation: 3-4 months

Sound: shrieks

28