Errors and Uncertainties in Biology Internal Assessment

The treatment of errors and uncertainties is relevant in the internal assessment criteria of:

 data collection and processing, aspect 1 (recording raw data)

 data collection and processing, aspect 3 (presenting processed data)

 conclusion and evaluation, aspects 1 and 2 (concluding; evaluating procedure(s)).

Biology is not an exact science. Much of the data collected by biologists is qualitative, and biological systems are
complex and difficult to control. Biological investigations, nevertheless, often require measurements, and biology
candidates need to be aware of the sources of error in their data, qualitative or quantitative.

An appreciation of error should be apparent at all stages of a report on an investigation.

 In the planning stages where the limitations of the time and the materials should be assessed, and
the potential sources of error should be controlled.

 In the data collection and processing stages where the degree of accuracy of a measuring device
should be stated.

 In the evaluation of the investigation where the sources of error should be discussed, along with
the possible ways of avoiding them.

Although candidates should analyse their investigations for sources of error, they should not be led to conclude that,
with all such sources of error and imprecision, experimental results are worthless. Experimental results are only
estimates.

Scientists are expected to:

1. make every effort to avoid errors in their design of investigations and in their use of instruments

2. be aware of the sources of error and appreciate their magnitude.

Examples of Errors

Human Errors

Human errors can occur when tools or instruments are used or read incorrectly. For example, a temperature reading
from a thermometer in a liquid should be taken after stirring the liquid and with the bulb of the thermometer still in
the liquid. Thermometers and other instruments should be read with the eye level with the liquid to prevent parallax
error. Human errors can be systematic, because the experimenter does not know how to use the apparatus
properly, or they can be random, because the power of concentration of the experimenter is fading.

Systematic Errors

Systematic errors can be reduced if equipment is regularly checked or calibrated to ensure that it is functioning
correctly. For example, a thermometer should be placed in an electronic water bath to check that the thermostat is
correctly adjusted, and a blank should be used in a colorimeter to compensate for the drift of the instrument.

Random Errors

In biological investigations, errors can be caused by changes in the material used, or changes in the conditions under
which the experiment is carried out. Biological material is notably variable. For example, the water potential of potato
tissue may be calculated by soaking pieces of tissue in a range of concentrations of sucrose solutions. However, the
pieces of tissue will vary in their water potential, especially if they have been taken from different potatoes. Random
errors can be kept to a minimum by careful selection of material and careful control of variables. For example, using a
water bath or a blank.

Human errors can become random when people have to make a large number of tedious measurements and,
therefore, their concentration spans vary. Automated measuring, using a data logger system, can help reduce the
likelihood of this type of error. Alternatively, the experimenter can take a break occasionally.

Replicates and Samples

Biological systems, because of their complexity and variability, require replicate observations and multiple samples of
material. As a rule, the lower limit is five measurements, or a sample size of five. Very small samples run from 5 to
20, small samples run from 20 to 30, and big samples run from 30 upwards. Obviously, this will vary within the limits
of the time available for an investigation. Some simple investigations permitting a large sample, or a large number of
replicate measurements, could be included in the scheme of work to reinforce this point. It is also possible to use
class data to generate sufficient replicates to permit adequate processing of the data.

Candidates should be made aware that if a reading is particularly different from the others, it may be left out of the
processing and analysis. However, candidates must always justify why they have chosen to do this.

Degrees of Precision

The accepted rule is that the degree of precision is ± the smallest division on the instrument. For example, a leaf
measured using a ruler whose smallest division is 1 mm would measure 4.5 cm ± 0.1 cm. Candidates must choose an
appropriate instrument for measuring such things as length, volume, pH and light intensity. This does not mean that
every piece of equipment needs to be justified, and it can be appreciated that, in a normal science laboratory, the
most appropriate instrument may not be available.

The Act of Measuring

When a measurement is taken, this can affect the environment of the experiment. For example, when a cold
thermometer is put in a test tube of warm water, the water will be cooled by the presence of the thermometer, or
when the behaviour of animals is being recorded, the presence of the experimenter may influence the animals’
behaviour.

Errors and Uncertainties in Environmental Systems

1. Carrying Out Investigations

In a practical on productivity in terrestrial ecosystems, candidates study three, similarly sized, plots of vegetation. Plot
1 is harvested and massed at the beginning of the practical. Plot 2 is covered in black plastic, and plot 3 is left
untouched and allowed normal exposure to sunlight. At the end of a given period of time, plots 2 and 3 are harvested.
By looking at the differences in the masses of plots 1 and 3, net primary productivity (NPP) can be calculated. The
difference in mass between plots 1 and 2 would allow for the calculation of respiration.

To calculate productivity in kg/m2/year, candidates would have to determine the dry weight of the vegetation, divide
by the area of the plot, and further divide by the number of days the experiment ran (expressed as a fraction of a
year). Calculation of the area of each plot would be necessary for the computation of productivity, but candidates
would not be expected to address the uncertainty in the ruler/tape measure used to measure the sides of the plots.
Candidates would neither be expected to address the uncertainty in the electronic (or other) balance nor to propagate
errors. The greatest source of error in a study of this type would be either excess earth in the sample, or loss of root
material during harvesting. These errors overshadow any possible uncertainties in the measuring devices to such a
degree as to make them unimportant. This is not carte blanche for inattention to detail and inaccuracy in
measurement. The noise-to-signal ratio is so high in fieldwork that in order to increase the probability of success, and
to reduce sources of error to a minimum, measurements must be as accurate as possible.

2. Use of Equipment

A great deal of fieldwork relies upon kits or probes of one type or another. Candidates must be instructed in
procedures to calibrate their equipment, and/or the running of standards where possible. These should be discussed in
the write-ups. At the very least, mention should be made of whether calibration of the apparatus was even possible.
Consulting with a chemistry colleague should allow for the preparation of standards if, for example, a class will be
studying phosphates in river water using a kit available from one of the various supply houses. An added advantage is
that access to standards can turn a qualitative test into a semi-quantitative test. Although this does not address the
concept of uncertainty in itself, it does address the concept of accuracy in field work.

3. Reporting on Findings

A common problem lies in candidates' treatment of significant figures. While it is not expected that this topic would be
covered at the same level of detail as in a physics class, candidates should be able to use significant figures
appropriately.

Table 1 is an extract from a lab on productivity. The data in this table shows a disregard for significant figures. It is
presented with accuracies varying from one to four significant figures. If (as is presumed) all the measurements were
carried out on the same scale, all should be reported to the nearest 0.0001 g or, alternatively, all should be rounded to
the same number of decimal places. This candidate would be penalized in aspect 1 of data collection.

Table 1
Weight (g)
Dry weight of population at start 1.676
Dry weight of population at end 1.918
Dry weight of food made available to population 0.6583
Dry weight of food remaining at end 0
Dry weight of food eaten 0.6583
Dry weight of faeces 0.01
Gross productivity 0.6573
Net productivity 0.242
Respiratory loss 0.4153

Table 2 shows data collected from a practical on the effect of salinity on seed germination. Given that ten seeds were
planted in each of six petri dishes, reported percentages would be integer figures. However, here the candidate has
added two zeroes to the right of the decimal point. Clearly, it is inappropriate to report the percentages to the nearest
hundredth. Furthermore, the second column heading is incorrect. This candidate would be penalized in aspect 2 of
data processing and presentation.

Table 2
Salt concentration (M) Number of seeds germinated
0 100.00%
0.1 100.00%
0.2 60.00%
0.3 50.00%
0.4 30.00%
0.5 0.00%

The same expectations hold for simple statistical calculations, such as means and standard deviations. In Table 3, the
average differences calculated are simply the numbers reported by the calculator. Each of these should be calculated
to the number of significant figures present in the least accurate of the measurements. While the second value in the
last column might be accepted (the 2.7 that it is calculated from should really be 2.70), introducing a third decimal
place of accuracy is not acceptable. This would also be penalized in aspect 2 of data processing and presentation.

Table 3
Beaker Nitrates (g) Weight of Weight of Difference (g) Average
beaker beaker difference (g)
before (g) after (g)
1 0 193.98 198.42 4.44 3.415
2 0 196.12 198.51 2.39

3 0.4 200.78 203.48 2.7 3.78

4 0.4 191.02 195.88 4.86

5 0.8 194.54 198.44 3.9 4.44

6 0.8 197.78 202.76 4.98

7 1.2 190.26 195.85 5.59 4.86

8 1.2 196.84 200.97 4.13

9 1.6 189.94 195.73 5.79 5.835

10 1.6 194.34 200.22 5.88

11 2 194.16 201.03 6.87 13.21

12 2 181.36 200.91 19.55

One of the most important skills an environmental systems candidate can learn is how to adequately sample the
environment during fieldwork. If a candidate is to randomly sample a local ecosystem, care should be taken to ensure
that the sample is random, and not haphazard. The guiding principle is that every location in the study area must have
an equal chance of being sampled. If candidates are sampling a football field by standing in the middle of the field and
throwing a rock, clearly there is not an equal chance of every location being sampled.

In many practicals, candidates use quadrats to determine percentage cover. Care must be taken to ensure that the
sample is representative (at the very least the candidate should recognize that, due to time constraints, it will not be
possible to obtain a representative sample). How many quadrats will be sampled, and what is the correct size of
quadrat to be used? Candidates can keep a cumulative species log to determine when the number of species stops
increasing. This will determine the correct number of quadrats. This can be done in an initial field study, and the
number established used for later work on the same habitat.

To minimize uncertainty in fieldwork, candidates must ensure that random, representative data is being collected.
Where this is not possible, candidates should be aware of the limitations of their sample.

Finally, where various statistical calculations are made, some comment should be made on them in the conclusion and
evaluation criterion.