After arriving at Masc.. Gregg Park and analyzing the temperatures of four microcircuits within woo habitats with infrared thermometers, the temperatures were compared between the microcircuits. Then, one habitat was chosen to analyze the temperatures between temperatures of isotherms using I-buttons that were placed inside Peeps. After the five Peeps were placed in each microcircuit our predictions were that as the geothermal organism increased in elevation, the temperature of the organism would decrease do to access to the wind and convection (Biology 301 Handout 2013 Thermal Environments).
After gathering the temperatures from the I-buttons, over a twenty minute reading in each acrobatic the data was organized in Excelџ to be placed into an NOVAE calculation to calculate the null hypothesis. Once the p value was compared to alpha (. 05) it was determined to be significant because the p value was lower than alpha. Therefore it is clear that the body temperature of an ectoderm could be affected by the elevation of the organism and convection.
For future experiments in this subject it would be more beneficial to test microcircuits that vary more in temperature to truly be able to analyze the factors of triangulation in microcircuits. Introduction: The triangulation of isotherms such as reptiles and insects has increased in “concern about the impacts of global warming on biodiversity… Into direct impacts on living animals that remain simplistic” (Carney, Shine, Porter, 1). Unlike mammals, isotherms “have variable body temperatures. Because physiological rates are temperature sensitive, an isotherm’s behavioral and ecological performance… An be influenced by body temperature” (Hey, Kingfisher, p. 131-135). The habitats chosen in this lab were under a large oak tree and in a shaded area in the front of the park. The habitat under the oak tree as used to analyze the microcircuits within it, one at the ground of the tree and one on a branch of the tree, six feet above the ground. Through analyzing the microcircuits of Masc.. Gregg Park it was predicted that the elevation, related to wind availability and convection, is a pattern that could affect geothermal organisms by decreasing the body temperature of the ectoderm as the organism increases in elevation.
Materials and Methods: After the lab members arrived at Masc.. Gregg Park groups were formed to analyze the habitat of Masc.. Gregg Park (taking into account the water access, moon vegetation, and five temperature readings) and recording the observations. Within one of the habitats the groups analyzed two microcircuits within the habitat. The microcircuits were found by analyzing the temperature differences within the habitat. The temperature differences of the two microcircuits were taken by using infrared thermometers.
A group member held the thermometer very close to the microcircuit and pressed the button on top for five different temperature readings (in degrees Celsius), these temperatures were recorded. The groups then found another habitat within Masc.. Gregg Park ND repeated the steps from the first two microcircuits to two more microcircuits within the new habitat. The groups then analyzed the recordings of the infrared temperatures within the four microcircuits. A hypothesis was constructed about the isotherms ability to sustain in the microcircuits the group analyzed.
Since two microcircuits were on the ground, with more coverage, and had a higher temperature than the two other microcircuits that were more exposed to conditions and were higher in elevation, the group concluded that if an ectoderm is higher in elevation and exposed to conditions such as wind the DOD temperature of that organism will be lower than an ectoderm on the ground. The group then chose one of the two habitats to further investigate its microcircuits. The habitat with the biggest temperature difference between the infrared readings of the two microcircuits was the one chosen by the group.
The group used ten I-buttons, temperature-recording devices, and ten marshmallow Peeps to analyze the temperatures of geothermal organisms within microcircuits. The small I-buttons were taken out of ice water and pressed into a hole that was made with then end of a pen cap into the bottom of the marshmallow Peeps. Then five were immediately placed into each microcircuit for twenty minutes. The time that the Peeps were placed into the microcircuits was immediately recorded.
Twenty minutes later the stop time was recorded and the group took the I-buttons out of the Peeps, recorded the serial numbers of the I-buttons corresponding to the microcircuit they were placed in and then returned the materials to the lab TA and the Peeps were discarded. Back in the laboratory, the data from the I-buttons was collected and put into a spreadsheet by a TA and put of Blackboard. SC. Due for the lab groups to use to use the data. The groups gathered at a computer to put the data from Masc.. Gregg Park into Excel to eventually be able to run an NOVA.
First, two charts (Figures 1 and 2) were made, one for temperatures from microcircuit one and the next for microcircuit two (labeled Branch and Ground. ) The groups started by making a column in each of the two charts for time elapsed, then the temperatures for each minute (recorded from the I-buttons) were put into the next five columns (Biology 301 Handout, Graphing Populous Data pig 1-4). Then the average of each of the five I-button readings were put into the seven column of each of the two harts.
To find the average in Excel they typed “-AVERAGE (highlight all cells to be averaged)” in the function box and selected the box where the answer should go. Then, dragged the blue marker in the corner of the box down the column to find all of the averages (Biology 301 Handout, Graphing Populous Data pig 1-4). The standard deviation of the five I-button readings was put into the eight column of each of the two charts. To find the standard deviation a group member typed “=STEED(highlight all cells to be averaged)” in the function box and selected the box where the answer was needed.
Then, dragged the blue marker in the corner of the box down the column to find all of the standard deviations (Biology 301 Handout, Graphing Populous Data pig 1-4). The confidence interval for each minute of the five I-buttons was then calculated and put into the ninth column of each of the two charts. To find the confidence interval, a group member typed “-CONFIDENCE(alpha (. 05, standard deep of the row you are calculating from, and the sample size (5))”in the function box and select the box where the answer was needed.
Then, dragged the blue marker in the corner of the box down the lump to find all of the confidence intervals (Biology 301 Handout, Graphing Populous Data pig 1-4). The final two columns of the to charts were the upper and lower confidence intervals for each microcircuit. The upper confidence intervals were calculated and put in column ten. A group member calculated the upper confidence interval in each chart by, finding the average (from the row of the same minute) for the microcircuit and adding it to the confidence interval, and repeated for every minute elapsed in both charts.
The lower confidence interval was then calculated and put in column eleven of each of the two charts. This was done by subtracting the average for each row (minute elapsed) by the confidence interval for that particular microcircuit. This was repeated for each minute elapsed. Then a new chart was created in Excel (below the previous two, but on the same page) by copying and pasting the time elapsed column, then the confidence intervals, averages, and upper and lower confidence intervals for both microcircuits. Then the groups preformed an NOVA in Excel by clicking in a blank cell and hitting “data” then “data analysis” from the Data menu.