Finalized by: Mallory Verch

     In this experiment there were 89 fox squirrels observed coming in contact with humans. For the human action of walking there were 19/89, or 21.35% of fox squirrels that had no response. For submissive behavior, 16/89, or 17.98% of fox squirrels showed fleeing behavior, and none or 0% of fox squirrels showed dropping head or dropping tail behavior (Figure 1.A) For agnostic behavior, none or 0%, of the fox squirrel reactions displayed chasing, biting, chattering. 2/89 or 2.25% of rapid tail movement behavior was shown(Figure 1.1A). For anti-predator behavior, the results for both freezing and scanning behavior were 1/89 or 1.12% of the observed fox squirrels (Figure 1.1A). The human action of running had 3/89 or 3.37% of fox squirrels have a no response reaction (Figure 1.1B). For the submissive behavior, 7/89 or 7.87% of fox squirrels displayed fleeing behavior (Figure 1.1B). The results for both categories of dropping head and dropping tail both had none or 0% responses (Figure 1.B) For the agostic behavior there were no fox squirrel responses or 0% of each behavior of chasing, biting, chattering, and rapid tail movement (Figure 1.B) For the anti-predator behavior there were no fox squirrel responses or 0% of each behavior of freezing, scanning, and freezing in an upright position (Figure 1.B). For the human action of biking there were 14/89, or 15.73% of fox squirrels that have a no response reaction (Figure 1.C). For the submissive behavior, 16/89, or 17.98% of fox squirrels showed the fleeing behavior (Figure 1.C). Both categories of dropping head and dropping tail there were none or 0% of fox squirrels displaying these reactions (Figure 1.C) For agnostic behavior, 0/89, or 0% of fox squirrels had no responses of chasing, biting, chattering or rapid tail movement (Figure 1.C) For the freezing behavior, 2/89 or 2.25% displayed freeing behavior (Figure 1.C). There were none or 0% of fox squirrels displaying scanning behavior, and 4/89 or 4.49% of of fox squirrels displayed freezing in an upright position (Figure 1.C). There is a small amount of submissive, agnostic and anti-predator reactions in every category of walking, biking and running because of the fox squirrels decreased fear of humans (Mccleery, 2009).

      For the fox squirrel experiment, there were varying numbers between humans walking, running and biking. At Wells Hall, there was a total of 41 human actions observed. 19/41 or 46.34% of the humans were walking within 10 feet of the fox squirrel, 19/41 or 46.34% of humans were biking, and 3/41 or 7.32% of humans were running (Figure 2.A). At Holmes Hall, there was a total of 25 human actions observed. For the action of walking, 14/25 or 56% of humans were walking within 10 feet of the squirrel, 8/25 or 32% were biking, and 3/25, or 12% were running (Figure 2.B) At Shaw Hall, there was a total of 24 human actions observed. 11/24, or 42.3% of the humans were walking, 9/11 or 34.62% of humans were biking, and 4/24 or 15.38% of the humans were running (Figure 2.C). Collectively at all three locations, walking was the most common human action observed. Based on the data collected from the fox squirrel experiment, walking is seen less of a threat compared to biking. Squirrels are adjusting to the urbanization of the environment around them due to the many human actions being performed.

      For the human experiment, there were 32 total humans we observed crossing the intersection at Spartan Statue. There were 12 humans observed walking, and 6/12 or 50% had no response, 6/12 or 50% had submissive reactions and no humans, or 0% had agnostic reactions (Figure 3.A). There was a total of 7 humans running while crossing the intersection. 4/7, or 57% had no response, 3/7 or 43% had submissive reactions, and none or 0% had agnostic reactions (Figure 3.B). There were 13 humans biking at this observation site. 8/13 or 62% had no response, 5/13 or 38% had submissive responses and none or 0% had agnostic reactions. Submissive behavior was the second most common response. This is because flight behaviors are more prevalent when a human comes in contact with a threat (Neuberg, Kenrick, and Schaller, 2011). Being afraid of something that could be potentially dangerous causes humans to respond with fear by backing up or stopping completely, rather than becoming angry and have a higher chance of their safety being threatened.

      In the experiment there was a total of 89 fox squirrels which encountered human interactions. 31/89 or 35% of fox squirrels recorded were responsive to bipedal human interaction (Figure 4). 22/89 or 25% of fox squirrels were not responsive to bipedal human interaction (Figure 4). 22/89 or 25% of the fox squirrels observed were responsive to human interactions while the human was on a bicycle (Figure 4). 14/89 or 16% of the fox squirrels recorded did not show any response to human interaction if the human was riding a bicycle (Figure 4). Chi-squared tests for independence were calculated to determine if there was a relationship between the categorial variables. The variables examined in the first test were whether the fox squirrels showed any response or not to humans not on a bike and to humans on a bike. The p value for this test was 0.8047 which does not provide statistical proof of a relationship between the variables tested. A second chi- squared test was performed to test the if there was a relationship between humans not on a bike and humans on a bike with the portion of squirrels who did have responses and what those responses were. The responses were categorized into agnostic, anti-predator and submissive (Parker and Nilson, 2008). The result of the second test did not prove a relationship between the variables, with a p value of 0.4108. These chi- squared tests showed that the relationship between the 24% of fox squirrels who responded to contact with humans on a bicycle and the 16% who did not are not a statistically valid trend. The tests also displays that the 34% of fox squirrels who responded to bipedal contact with humans opposed to the 25% who did not was not a statistically valid trend.

Figures

Finalized by: Alexis Knoblock

Figure 1- Percent of Fox Squirrels responding to three different human caused stimuli; walking running and biking within a 10 foot range. Data was collected on either submissive actions, agnostic actions, anti-predator, or no response to humans for when the specific action was done within ten feet, by videotaping and rewatching for actions to record at a later date as a group. Each category, except no response, is separated into subcategories. A. Percent of squirrels performing each reaction to humans walking within ten feet. There was 43 fox squirrel – human interactions with 16 of them being in the submissive, 2 agnostic, 5 anti-predator, and the other 19 no response. The submissive subcategory of fleeing had 16 or 17.98% of fox squirrels interactioning with humans walking. The agnostic subcategory of rapid tail movement was seen 2 times or 2.25%. All 3 anti-predator subcategories were seen. Freezing one or 1.12% of the time, scanning 1 or 1.12% of the time, and freezing in upright position 4 or 4.49% of the time. No response was seen 19 or 21.35% of the time. B. Percent of squirrels performing each reaction to humans running within ten feet. There was 10 fox squirrel – human interactions with 7 of them being in the submissive category, and the other 3 no response. The submissive subcategory of fleeing had 7 or 7.87% of fox squirrels interactioning with humans walking. No response was seen 3 or 3.37% of the time. C. Percent of squirrels performing each reaction to human biking within ten feet. There was 36 fox squirrel – human interactions with 16 of them being in the submissive, 6 anti-predator, and the other 14 are in the no response category. The submissive subcategory of fleeing had 16 or 17.98% of fox squirrels interactioning with humans walking. 2 of the 3 anti-predator subcategories were seen. Freezing 2 or 2.25% of the time and freezing in upright position 4 or 4.49% of the time. No response was seen 14 or 15.73% of the time.

Figure 2- Percent of Humans Causing Fox Squirrel Reaction to Observe Which Human Actions Around Squirrels Was Most Prevalent at Three Locations At a busy intersection on Michigan State University’s campus, humans were observed walking, running, and biking in the presence of vehicles that posed a threat to them. Data was collected on if they acted submissively, agnostically, or with no response by videotaping at the intersection then viewing the footage as a group to see what if any interactions occurred. A. Percent of human reactions (submissive, agnostic, or no response) due to human – vehicle interaction while human was walking. There was 12 human – vehicle interactions, 6 or 50% submissive and 6 or 50% no response. B. Percent of human reactions (submissive, agnostic, or no response) due to human – vehicle interaction while human was running. There was 7 human – vehicle interactions, 3 or 43% submissive and 4 or 57% no response. C. Percent of human reactions (submissive, agnostic, or no response) due to human – vehicle interaction while human was biking. There was 13 human – vehicle interactions, 5 or 38% submissive and 8 or 62% no response.

Figure 3- Percent of Human Reactions Due to Vehicle. Data was collected on submissive, agnostic, anti-predator, or no response to humans for when the specific action was done within ten feet, and what human stimuli caused it by videotaping and rewatching for actions to record later as a group. In the key (W+R) stands for humans walking or running. Recorded data taken from all the study locations which includes Holmes Hall, Wells Hall, and Shaw Hall. 25% of human – fox squirrel interactions were walking and running no response, 35% walking and running squirrel response, 16% biking- squirrel no response, and 24% biking – squirrel response. The graph shows that most squirrels will be responsive to any human interaction versus humans riding a bike.

Figure 4-Fox Squirrel responsiveness to Human Interaction and Human Interaction While on a Bicycle. Data was collected on submissive, agnostic, anti-predator, or no response to humans for when the specific action was done within ten feet, and what human stimuli caused it by videotaping and rewatching for actions to record later as a group. In the key (W+R) stands for humans walking or running. Recorded data taken from all the study locations which includes Holmes Hall, Wells Hall, and Shaw Hall. 25% of human – fox squirrel interactions were walking and running no response, 35% walking and running squirrel response, 16% biking- squirrel no response, and 24% biking – squirrel response. The graph shows that most squirrels will be responsive to any human interaction versus humans riding a bike.

Figure 5-Squirrel Documentary

Appendix