diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'document')
| -rw-r--r-- | document/conclusion.tex | 9 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/document/conclusion.tex b/document/conclusion.tex index e69de29..c968532 100644 --- a/document/conclusion.tex +++ b/document/conclusion.tex @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +Pit depth and width correlate strongly with trial area, as demonstrated by graph one, which relates the two. +The pit positioning of antlions (as a group and as individuals) likely varies solely to maximize ant capture. +Therefore, this phenomenon is observed because antlions’ pits don’t need to be as big when the main constraint on ants falling into the pit is simply having a pit available for them to fall into. +This is also observable by the trials’ decreasing number of visible pits (versus total antlions introduced) with respect to size: they start to hide underground because rather than simply having smaller pits than stronger antlions, they have to rest underground, possibly to preserve group wellbeing. +Graph 2 indicates a similar trend---antlions’ territory as described by the nearest neighbor calculation is much lower in smaller containers. +This is the natural consequence of less area being available but demonstrates that the effects of hiding don’t completely level the density of antlion pits based on population per area. +Additionally, deaths remain minimal even in highly crowded conditions like the 8x7, which means that deaths are probably accidental at worst and antlions work to preserve the group’s chances of surviving. +The earlier hypothesis was proven to be correct, as the correlation between a smaller trial size and more extreme behaviors (such as cannibalism and reclusiveness) is supported by the data, as an increase in cannibalism was seen in lower treatment groups, hinting towards more aggressive behavior at lower trial groups, thereby proving the hypothesis. + |