Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Derek Hearley

Natalie Williams

Zack Seitz, Zane Gilbert, Israel Cazuela Garcia , and Evan Yatsko

Advanced Placement Environmental Science

Mrs. Norris

September 18th, 2017

A Comparison of Microinvertebrate Biodiversity

Purpose

To quantify the biodiversity of macroinvertebrates in various locations.

Hypothesis

If we compare leaf litter from the Heritage High School construction zone and leaf litter from the

Heritage High School verdant forest, then the litter from the verdant forest will be more diverse. This because

the construction zone is less habitable.

Data and Analysis

Species Total Number of Construction Zone Verdant Forest


Species

Aranae 2 -- 2

Collembola 2 2 --

Hymenoptera 7 7 --

Pauropoda 1 -- 1

Acarina 15 -- 15

Diptera 2 2 --

Thysanoptera 1 -- 1
Total 32 11 21

Species Richness 7 3 4

Simpson’s Index -- 0.42 0.62

Table 1​: The chart contains the numbers of animals per species and the Simpson’s Index of each area.

Fig 1: The amounts of animals per species in the construction zone area of Heritage High School.

Fig. 2: The amount of each species in the verdant forest of Heritage High School.
Conclusion

TAB​The expected results were that the macroinvertebrates in the verdant forest would be more biodiverse than

the macroinvertebrates in the construction zone. The results may have been different then what we thought

because there could have been human error with counting and recording the macroinvertebrates. ​We may have

got the results we got because ​of the errors we could have made when recording the macroinvertebrates. These

results explain that the construction zone was more biodiverse than the verdant forest. The construction zone

had a .42 Simpson's Index and the verdant forest had a .50 Simpson’s Index. The closer the number to zero the

more biodiverse the community is. ​This data disproves the hypothesis because we thought the verdant forest

was going to be more biodiverse than the construction zone. The data however proves that the construction zone

is more biodiverse​ due to the due to the Sim​pson’s Index.

The method of obtaining the macroinvertebrates could be more improved by using a carton of milk with

a cap on it until we get inside, because some of the macroinvertebrates could of got out while walking back to

the classroom without a cap. This error could have been avoided by using a cap or something that would cover

the bottom of the bottle so that no macroinvertebrates could escape. We could have also made sure there was

an equal amount of leaf litter and not one test subject had more than the other test subject. In the case of

contamination, we could have controlled it better by not having the same person and hand grab both the leaf

litter to test. The equipment used could have been more precise in regards to being able to identify and see the

macroinvertebrates more clearly.

The purpose was to quantify the biodiversity of macroinvertebrates, and we were able to do that by

taking two samples of leaf litter and comparing how many of each species of macroinvertebrates there were.

The results of the Simpson's Index gives us the biodiversity of the macroinvertebrates, which was the purpose in

doing the experiment. ​The other group however had samples from deep in the forest and right next to the

school. Both the areas were greatly diverse and they were only different by .01 in the Simpson’s Index. The

results may have been different because we got two different types of samples from two different locations.
They got their results from deep in the forest and right next to the school. As we got our samples from the in the

front of the woods and in the construction zone.

​In conclusion​ ​the results we got were that the macroinvertebrates were more biodiverse in the

construction zone than in the verdant forest. However David G. Haskell investigated the effects of road

construction on macroinvertebrates fauna of the soil. What he found is completely different than what we found

in our experiment. Haskell wrote, “ Road significantly depressed both the abundance and richness of the

macroinvertebrate soil fauna. Roads also significantly reduced the depth of the leaf litter layer” (David G.

Haskell). Haskell found that the construction decreased the abundance and richness which goes against what we

found which was that the construction zone had a high species abundance and richness. B.J. Erhart R.D.

Shannon, and A.R. Jarrett found that the sedimentation basin discharge from construction zones did not

significantly change the number of macroinvertebrates individual present. In the article it states, “There was no

significant change in number of macroinvertebrates individuals as a result of the sedimentation basin

discharge,.”( B.J. Erhart R.D. Shannon, and A.R. Jarrett). This goes against David Haskell’s findings and helps

our findings by this showing that the construction does not necessarily decrease the species richness or

biodiversity of macroinvertebrates in the leaf litter.


Works Cited

Haskell, David G. “Effects of Forest Roads on Macroinvertebrate Soil Fauna of the Southern Appalachian

Mountains.” ​Conservation Biology​, Blackwell Science Inc, 24 Dec. 2001,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99232.x/full.

Ehrhart, B. J., et al. “EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION SITE SEDIMENTATION BASINS ON RECEIVING

STREAM ECOSYSTEMS.” ​Transactions of the ASAE​, American Society of Agricultural and Biological

Engineers, 1 Jan. 2002,

​elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=8833.
Do not remove or mark below. This rubric is for grading purposes.

Rubric
1 = Poor 2 = Above Average 3 = Excellent
Categories

The report identifies an The report identifies an The report situates the
overly broad or simplistic adequately focused area of student’s investigation of
area of investigation and/or investigation based upon the complexities of a
Understand
shows little evidence of purpose of lab and appropriate problem or issue based
Context
research. hypothesis upon purpose of lab and
appropriate hypothesis

Quantitative data poorly Quantitative data collected Quantitative data collected


Experiment
collected and poor or through experimentation with through experimentation
& Data
incorrect connection to a loose connection to theme of with a strong connection to
Collection
theme of paper. paper. theme of paper.

Quantitative data analyzed Quantitative data analyzed Quantitative data analyzed


using appropriate using appropriate calculations. using appropriate
Data Analysis calculations. Appropriate Appropriate graphical calculations. Appropriate
and graphical representation of representation of data chosen graphical representation of
Graphing data chosen to highlight to highlight significant details data chosen to highlight
significant details and and support conclusions. significant details and
support conclusions. support conclusions.

Student demonstrates an Student discusses the Student discusses the


obvious misunderstanding utilization of the appropriate utilization of the
of the utilization of the scientific techniques and appropriate scientific
appropriate scientific instruments. Makes techniques and
techniques and instruments. conclusions and evaluates instruments. Makes
Science as a
Makes incorrect their quality and validity based conclusions and evaluates
process
conclusions that are not on statistical evidence. their quality and validity
connected to collected data Proposes further questions for based on statistical
or statistical evidence. Does study. evidence. Proposes further
not address possible future questions for study.
investigations

A simplistic connection or It makes clear the significance It makes clear the


Analyze no connections is made of to a larger context ​without significance to a larger
Context the overall problem citing specific research context citing specific
research

The report restates or The report summarizes Student is able to support


Understand misstates information from information in places and their conclusion through
and Analyze sources. It doesn’t address offers effective explanation of direct explanation or
Argument reasoning in the sources or the reasoning with the through purposeful use of
(outside it does so in a very sources’ argument (but does the reasoning using
sources) simplistic way. so inconsistently) statistical data as
evidentiary support.
The report identifies The report in places offers The report demonstrates
evidence from chosen some effective explanation of evaluation of credibility of
sources. It makes very chosen sources and evidence the sources ​and​ selection of
Evaluate simplistic, illogical, or no in terms of their credibility relevant evidence from the
Sources reference to the credibility and relevance to the inquiry sources. Both can be
of sources and evidence, (but does so inconsistently). evidenced by direct
and their relevance to the explanation or through
inquiry purposeful use.

Specific data, graphs, Specific data, graphs, Specific data, graphs,


quantitative data cited but quantitative data cited with quantitative data cited and
Evaluate
no inferences made weak inferences to main logical inferences made
Evidence
regarding the data and its theme. regarding the data and its
connection to main theme. connection to main theme.

The report identifies few The report identifies The report discusses a range
Understand and perspectives that are multiple perspectives from of perspectives and draws
and Analyze vastly oversimplified from sources, making some explicit and relevant
Perspective sources. general connections among connections among those
those perspectives perspectives

The report includes many The report attributes and The report attributes and
In-text errors in attribution and accurately cites the sources accurately cites the sources
Citations in-text citation used with few minor mistakes used. (in-text)
(in-text)

Works Cited is incomplete The Works Cited accurately The Works Cited
references sources using a accurately references
Works Cited
consistent style with a few sources using a consistent
minor mistakes style

The report contains many The report is generally clear The report communicates
flaws in grammar that often but contains some flaws in clearly to the audience
interfere with grammar that occasionally (although may not be free of
Grammar
communication to the interferes with errors in grammar and style)
audience. communication to the
audience

The written/technical style The written/technical style is The written/technical style


(MLA is not appropriate for an mostly consistently is consistently appropriate
Format) academic audience appropriate for an academic for an academic audience
audience.

37 pts, 95% ​Sep 27-> Graded: 37 pts, 95%

Teacher Rubric Settings: t03960fffp mrskaranorris _


39 pts Points Possible:

Вам также может понравиться