1. If being flashy and colorful attracts predators, why do you think guppies are so colorful?
They are colorful because flashy colors attract mates. (If less colorful guppies were bred together, however, we could create a new kind of guppy that can hide from predators more easily!)
2. After viewing the guppy gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s scientific name, origin and average size? Describe the coloration of the fish you chose.
The Poecilia reticulata is a Brazilian guppy that is about 1.4" long. It's black with noticeable spots of yellow and white, as well as a red spot on its dorsal fin. Its tail fin is green.
3. After viewing the predator gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s common name, scientific name, and origin?
The pike cichlid, also known as the Crenicichla alta, is a 12" long fish that originated in Latin America. It's completely pink, but has some flecks of white along its back, and has a prominent black spot just above its fin.
4. View the guppy’s habitats, what habitat conditions would affect the predator populations?
The shallow pool would be hard for predators to find their way into. The dam restricts predator movements.
5. Who is John Endler? What did he study and where did he study it?
John Endler is an evolutionary ecologist. He studied guppies in Trinidad and rediscovered a species.
6. For each of the three stream areas, describe the guppy coloration.
Pool one has brightly-colored guppies with large spots. Pool two has medium-colored guppies with medium-sized spots. Pool three has drab guppies with small spots.
7. Develop your own hypothesis about guppy coloration. The hypothesis should answer why guppies in different areas of the stream have difference in coloration. (You can choose from the list on the simulation, or make up your own)
"Predators are causing guppy populations to become more drab by preying on the most brightly-colored individuals and eliminating them from the gene pool.
Trial 1
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus
Brightest guppies: 48%
Bright guppies: 43%
Drab guppies: 7%
Drabbest guppies: 3%
Trial 2
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara
Brightest guppies: 7%
Bright guppies: 73%
Drab guppies: 20%
Drabbest guppies: 0%
Trial 3
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid
Brightest guppies: 0%
Bright guppies: 0%
Drab guppies: 0%
Drabbest guppies: 100%
Trial 4
Guppy: Mostly Bright
Predators: 30 Rivulus
Brightest guppies: 83%
Bright guppies: 13%
Drab guppies: 4%
Drabbest guppies: 0%
Trial 5
Guppy: Mostly Drab
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid
Brightest guppies: 0%
Bright guppies: 0%
Drab guppies: 0%
Drabbest guppies: 0%
8. Describe how predators influence guppy coloration.
With the rivulus fish and the acara fish, the brightly colored guppies were easily able to survive. However, with the mix of cichlid, only the drab population survived.
9. Was your hypothesis correct, use your data to justify your answer.
Partly. In some trials, only the bright guppies survived. Note that said trials used weaker fish.
10. What does it mean that “male guppies live in a crossfire between their enemies and their would be mates”?
It means male guppies will either have to A) use their bright colors to attract mates, but risk being attacked by predators or B) use their drab colors to hide from predators, but have a lesser chance of attracting a mate.
11. Why do you think guppies in different areas of the stream have different coloration?
They have different coloration due to the predators that dwell there. With weaker predators, the bright-colored guppy population is still prominent, while areas with stronger predators has only drab-colored ones.
12. What would happen to mostly drab guppies that were placed in a stream with very few predators?
They would thrive, because the predators would not notice them.
13. What would happen to brightly colored guppies that were placed in a stream with many predators?
They would not live for very long, because their flashy colors would attract predators.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Biodiversity
Today in class, we were asked to research biodiversity by visiting various sites that were linked to on the webpage. Then we were asked to answer some questions about biodiversity.
I. Preserving biodiversity will have a HUGE global effect in many ways. Preserving different kinds of trees, for example, will prevent against floods, regulate the CO2 amount in the air, and provide homes for many different species, thus expanding biodiversity even further. Preserving certain animals will have an impact as well- some of our animals are used for food other than meat, such as cows for milk and chickens (and sometimes various other birds) for eggs. Additionally, biodiverse (?) habitats are less likely to be destroyed, and the less destroyed habitats there are, the better.
II. Habitat destruction and species loss can usually cause problems in other areas because of migration. If a habitat is destroyed, then organisms who would normally migrate to that habitat would have nowhere to go. Same goes for species loss- if a certain species normally migrates to an area, but suddenly becomes extinct, the area would be abandoned, which might even lead to THAT habitat being destroyed.
III. Preserving biodiversity enhances the lives of people in various ways. (See, I made a bit of a pun there.) As I touched on in the answer to question one, some animals are used for food other than meat. The more we have of these animals, the more food we get! As I also touched on in answer one, trees will regulate the amount of CO2 we have in the air, which would certainly be a good thing with all the global warming and pollution that's been happening. In hotter places- such as right here in Phoenix- a rich biodiversity of trees would be good for shading us! Too many trees in an area might cause forest fires, though.
In conclusion, preserving biodiversity would be a big help to Earth in general- but to do that, humans would have to start caring more and changing their ways. Are YOU up for that challenge?
I. Preserving biodiversity will have a HUGE global effect in many ways. Preserving different kinds of trees, for example, will prevent against floods, regulate the CO2 amount in the air, and provide homes for many different species, thus expanding biodiversity even further. Preserving certain animals will have an impact as well- some of our animals are used for food other than meat, such as cows for milk and chickens (and sometimes various other birds) for eggs. Additionally, biodiverse (?) habitats are less likely to be destroyed, and the less destroyed habitats there are, the better.
II. Habitat destruction and species loss can usually cause problems in other areas because of migration. If a habitat is destroyed, then organisms who would normally migrate to that habitat would have nowhere to go. Same goes for species loss- if a certain species normally migrates to an area, but suddenly becomes extinct, the area would be abandoned, which might even lead to THAT habitat being destroyed.
III. Preserving biodiversity enhances the lives of people in various ways. (See, I made a bit of a pun there.) As I touched on in the answer to question one, some animals are used for food other than meat. The more we have of these animals, the more food we get! As I also touched on in answer one, trees will regulate the amount of CO2 we have in the air, which would certainly be a good thing with all the global warming and pollution that's been happening. In hotter places- such as right here in Phoenix- a rich biodiversity of trees would be good for shading us! Too many trees in an area might cause forest fires, though.
In conclusion, preserving biodiversity would be a big help to Earth in general- but to do that, humans would have to start caring more and changing their ways. Are YOU up for that challenge?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Climate Change
Combustion
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland ignites the alcohol, then it will start smoking and possibly create a fire, because alcohol naturally reacts that way.
What actually happened: It did set on fire, but only momentarily due to the rubbing alcohol not being as strong as alternate fuel sources- and due to the fact that there was barely any alcohol in the bottle. It flew across the room due to Miss Leland building up the pressure in the alcohol beforehand, and became a bottle rocket, and made a WHOOSHing sound. The second time it didn't work, since Miss Leland didn't build up the pressure inside the bottle enough.
Thoughts on combustion: It's obviously linked to pollution. All these diffent and dangerous chemicals are interacting with each other, causing a potential threat.
CO2
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland exposes the mixture to the candle flames, they will become stronger. This obviously isn't safe.
What actually happened: The mixture put the fire out! Fire needs oxygen to burn, and the baking soda deprived the fire of oxygen.
Thoughts on CO2: It's dangerous for the climate, which is unfortunate considering there is so much of it. Most is being emitted by humans, while some is being emitted naturally.
Hydrogen Gas
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland exposes the hydrogen gas to the flame, then it will create a huge fire because hydrogen is extremely flammable.
What actually happened: There WAS a huge fire, but it died down once the chemical reaction slowed. Even when the gas was lit on fire again, it didn't flame for more than a few seconds. However, the fire was pretty awesome for the time being.
Thoughts on hydrogen gas and renewable energy: 86 percent of energy is fossil fuels. This shows that we are too dependent. However, wind energy seems to have potential for the future- between 1997 and 2006, the use increased by a factor of ten. The majority of energy comes from the sun, with the exception of tidal and nuclear, and geothermal. We are beginning to use the sun's energy more directly in the form of solar energy, and this is proving to be pretty promising as well. Solar power is only 0.01 percent of all the world's energy use, but it's becoming widely used.
Air Pressure
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland places the hot soda can full of water vapor in the ice bath, the can will explode due to cooling too quickly.
What actually happened: Absolutely nothing. Miss Leland says she's doing a second test using the soda can in the ice bath... hopefully it will be more interesting.
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland places the can upside down in to the ice bath, then it will explode due to contact with the inside of the can.
What actually happened: It IMPLODED, as if an invisible force had crushed the can from the inside! All of the water began pouring out from the can. A change in direction can affect an object's air pressure, which is exactly what we saw here- the can was a 'vacuum.'
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland ignites the alcohol, then it will start smoking and possibly create a fire, because alcohol naturally reacts that way.
What actually happened: It did set on fire, but only momentarily due to the rubbing alcohol not being as strong as alternate fuel sources- and due to the fact that there was barely any alcohol in the bottle. It flew across the room due to Miss Leland building up the pressure in the alcohol beforehand, and became a bottle rocket, and made a WHOOSHing sound. The second time it didn't work, since Miss Leland didn't build up the pressure inside the bottle enough.
Thoughts on combustion: It's obviously linked to pollution. All these diffent and dangerous chemicals are interacting with each other, causing a potential threat.
CO2
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland exposes the mixture to the candle flames, they will become stronger. This obviously isn't safe.
What actually happened: The mixture put the fire out! Fire needs oxygen to burn, and the baking soda deprived the fire of oxygen.
Thoughts on CO2: It's dangerous for the climate, which is unfortunate considering there is so much of it. Most is being emitted by humans, while some is being emitted naturally.
Hydrogen Gas
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland exposes the hydrogen gas to the flame, then it will create a huge fire because hydrogen is extremely flammable.
What actually happened: There WAS a huge fire, but it died down once the chemical reaction slowed. Even when the gas was lit on fire again, it didn't flame for more than a few seconds. However, the fire was pretty awesome for the time being.
Thoughts on hydrogen gas and renewable energy: 86 percent of energy is fossil fuels. This shows that we are too dependent. However, wind energy seems to have potential for the future- between 1997 and 2006, the use increased by a factor of ten. The majority of energy comes from the sun, with the exception of tidal and nuclear, and geothermal. We are beginning to use the sun's energy more directly in the form of solar energy, and this is proving to be pretty promising as well. Solar power is only 0.01 percent of all the world's energy use, but it's becoming widely used.
Air Pressure
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland places the hot soda can full of water vapor in the ice bath, the can will explode due to cooling too quickly.
What actually happened: Absolutely nothing. Miss Leland says she's doing a second test using the soda can in the ice bath... hopefully it will be more interesting.
Hypothesis: If Miss Leland places the can upside down in to the ice bath, then it will explode due to contact with the inside of the can.
What actually happened: It IMPLODED, as if an invisible force had crushed the can from the inside! All of the water began pouring out from the can. A change in direction can affect an object's air pressure, which is exactly what we saw here- the can was a 'vacuum.'
Friday, September 3, 2010
Chernobyl Article: Basic Summary & Reflection
This was an extremely long and complex article, and it was impossible to finish or take decent notes on. However, I'll try to summarize it as best as possible.
Basically, it addressed the many health problems caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Thyroid cancer was the most common, with 237 cases in the beginning. 28 of those patients died.
High levels of radiation caused problems sooner, and showed early symptoms like vomiting. Days after, the patients' white blood cell counts dropped severely. Low levels of radiation caused cancer later on. No matter how much radiation a person was exposed to, they always suffered some sort of disease.
My opinion on the article was that it was informative, even though it was complex. It went in- depth with the effects of radiation.
Questions: Were there any parts of the world not affected by radiation?
What sorts of diseases did the surviving nuclear plant workers get?
Basically, it addressed the many health problems caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Thyroid cancer was the most common, with 237 cases in the beginning. 28 of those patients died.
High levels of radiation caused problems sooner, and showed early symptoms like vomiting. Days after, the patients' white blood cell counts dropped severely. Low levels of radiation caused cancer later on. No matter how much radiation a person was exposed to, they always suffered some sort of disease.
My opinion on the article was that it was informative, even though it was complex. It went in- depth with the effects of radiation.
Questions: Were there any parts of the world not affected by radiation?
What sorts of diseases did the surviving nuclear plant workers get?
What other early symptoms were shown when a person is affected by radiation?
What diseases did animals get?
How did diseased animals and plants suddenly flourish and become the almost-paradise that Pripyat is today?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Chernobyl Article Questions
1. What would happen if people came and destroyed the forest area (without anyone else knowing?)
2. What similarities does this incident have with Love Canal? The Gulf oil spill?
3. It has been almost twenty years since that article was written. Has the "mysterious new medical syndrome" been defined yet?
4. Where exactly did this happen? Some sources say Ukraine, others say Russia.
5. How did the site of the Chernobyl accident become so lush all of a sudden? Don't nuclear disasters generally prevent plants from flourishing?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Questions for the Love Canal Debate
*What hasn't been done to clean up?
*Have there still been deaths linked to these chemicals recently? (In the past year or so?)
*Have Love Canal's chemicals spread to other parts of the town?
*What is the most toxic of all the chemicals?
*Would the chemicals still be contained over the protective covering if something like an earthquake occurred?
Love Canal Catalyst Questions
1.) What caused the toxic waste to begin being pushed to the surface?
The "wet season" of 1977 caused this- more specifically, the blizzards.
2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?
Some chemicals caused cancer, liver disease, problems with the nervous system, and birth defects.
3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?
Like any chemical disaster, the humans are never the only ones suffering. The animals are suffering as well. The chemicals definitely leak into rivers and other bodies of water, poisoning the fish that live there and the other forms of wildlife that drink from there. The chemicals are also getting in the soil, and are being absorbed by the roots of plants and trees, thus killing them. Animals that reproduce are baring offspring with birth defects, much like the humans that live there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)