Guppy Simulation Questions

1. If being flashy and colorful attracts predators, why do you think guppies are so colorful?

A: Being bright and colorful can give the predator a sense of the guppies being poisonous. Usually, the most bright organisms are very poisonous (i.e. the albino snake) and if the guppies are colorful, there would be a better chance of survival

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.
A: The fish is the Poecilia Reticula, a guppy coming from Brazil. It's usually 1.4" and is filled with colors. It has a green tail, red dots, and yellow spots. It's skin is black.


3. After viewing the predator gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s common name, scientific name, and origin?
A: The predator is the Fat Sleeper, or the Dormitator Maculatus. It comes from Southern North America, The Bahamas, and Latin America.

4. View the guppy’s habitats, what habitat conditions would affect the predator populations?
 A: Nearby dams or other things to restrict predatorial movements. If the predators can't hunt, they won't survive.

5. Who is John Endler? What did he study and where did he study it?
A: John Endler was an Evolutionary Scientist that studied guppy populations in the Trinidad area. He was interested in how guppies maintained their population
6. For each of the three stream areas, describe the guppy coloration:

Pool 1: Bright, multi-colored with large spots.
Pool 2: Medium coloration on body and tail with medium sized spots.

Pool 3: Drab coloration, very small spots near the tail


7. Develop your own hypothesis about guppy coloration. The hypothesis should answer the questions: Why do 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)

	% of Brightest Guppies (10 generations)	% of Bright Guppies (10 generations)	% of Drab Guppies (10 generations)	% of DrabbestGuppies (10 generations)
Trial 1 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus	84%	7%	4%	5%
Trial 2 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara	0%	60%	40%	0%
Trial 3 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid	0%	0%	2%	98%
Trial 4 Guppy: Mostly Bright Predators: 30 Rivulus	3%	16%	22%	59%
Trial 5 Guppy: Mostly Drab Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid	0%	2%	3%	95%

Summary
8. Describe how predators influence guppy coloration.
A: The first test showed that the brightest fish overpopulated the other fish in terms of percentage. But, as a new predator came in, the brightest and drabbest guppies were hunted to extinction. The brightest guppies continued to be low in population as the trials went on. The drabbest guppies seemed to survive very well for the last three tests, getting well over the other populations. The regular bright and drab guppies were mostly equal with each other.


9. Was your hypothesis correct, use your data to justify your answer.
A: My hypothesis was correct one out of five times. I predicted that the brightest guppies would survive for all of the trials. Of course, the brightest were actually eliminated for two of the tests, so I was wrong.


10. What does it mean that “male guppies live in a crossfire between their enemies and their would be mates”?
A: Well, guppies usually swell in population and their predators do as well because of the amount of prey. Since the mates are at a great number, so are the predators since they are doing well.



11. Why do you think guppies in different areas of the stream have different coloration?
A: Because of the amount of sunlight they are getting. Some of the streams are higher up, getting more sunlight. In fish terms, the more sunlight=more bright colors.



12. What would happen to mostly drab guppies that were placed in a stream with very few predators?
 A:Well, drab guppies blend in really well with the background, making it really hard to hunt them. Only predators with very good eyesight can hunt them. If there are very few predators, the drab guppy population would explode.


13. What would happen to brightly colored guppies that were placed in a stream with many predators?
 A: The bright colored guppies would be easily hunted to extinction. Since they are very easy to spot for the predators, they would be easy targets, no matter how poisonous they look.

Article 10/11/10

Conservation of nature is key. Sure, the human species has a way of taking away from nature, but it has been depleting it these days. Because of our growing need of resources, it has began to increase the amount we take from nature. 250,000 people are born each day, drastically increasing the population on Earth. Of course, scientists have been debating constantly on how we are to stop the depletion of biodiversity, and a few ways have gone into action. The first is called hot-spots. A hot-spot is an area of land dedicated to complete biodiversity, keeping the human population out of that certain zone. There are arguments to this method, one being that in some of the hot-spots chosen, there isn't enough animal population. Other setbacks include the loss of land for humans that includes agriculture and farm land. People that depend on that land are relocated, some in a habitat that is almost unlivable. These relocated people have to build a society, and sometimes hunt animals to extinction (the black rhino for example [It's not extinct, but pretty dang close]). Although hot-spots are still active, a new way has come forth: Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services can maintain biodiversity in an area, but get an economical benefit and not relocate humans. An example are the penguins on the coast of Argentina can be used for tourism and be unaffected by the human population. Basically it's a win-win-win. But, we aren't the only things that hurt biodiversity. There are the elements of the world that can do damage (i.e. Pakistain floods, Katrina, tsunamis, etc.). Dust from the (seemingly endless) Sahara Desert can be blown across the Atlantic Ocean and dumped several hundred tons of dust onto the coast. This really put some hurt on the coral reefs and wetlands. Also, forests being hit by forest fires can take a toll on organisms that live there. But, there are some ecosystems that resists disasters like these. Wetlands that were in Hurricane Katrina were barely damaged. Most of the orgainism living there got out alive. Unfortunately, there isn't as much biodiversity in a wetlands than a rain forest (In fact, one-tenth of the species in a rain forest would equal the amount in a wetland). If Katrina hit a more vulnerable area than a watland, there would be a devestation for biodiversity. Of course, that would lead to expenses to humans (protecting endangered animals, perserving ecosystems, etc.). Any way that you look at it, poverty and biodiversity are linked in some way. Usually, we will always choose money over anything, and that will probably continue. If money is chosen over biodiversity, the entire force of nature will be eliminated.

Biodiversity

Although we know how important biodiversity is, human activity has been making animals very scarce. Extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than normal, and will continue to rise to 10,000 in the next century. Every species in the races of amphibians. birds, mammals, reptiles, corals, and fish are all near threatened. Amphibians are especially endangered with population, equivalant to so to speak: "Canaries in a coal mine".Not only this, our climate change could wipe out 20% lizards species on the planet by the year of 2080. That's a lot considering how many lizards are out there. This accounts for sea life as well. A good example is the Japanese killing whales for "research". Because of this "research", thousands of whales have died. Not only this, but human activity has increased the amount of dead zones* in the ocean. This really has an effect on the species that live there, not giving them enough nutrients and depleting oxygen in the ocean (yes there is oxygen in the ocean).Now people have been thinking about biodiversity, debating whether it would be important enough to save, or should we stuff under the rug and pretend it's not there. Now, both view want the environment to stay alive, but for different purposes. The first side being the ones trying to stop extinction and use it for benefits like medicines and food. The other side is looking at it like a bank. Since resources come from the environment, resources=the most powerful word in the English language: money. Although being put against the argument of civilizations destroying other civilizations, these greenbacks use nature as a cash register. Our future potential for biodiversity, but scientists are using it as a way to save nature. Important ecosystems need the help of plants and animals to stay alive. If those abiotic factors are gone, the ecosystem wouldn't last.But, scientists have decided to test these plants for important nutrients. This created the magic of medicine, giving us extremely good health care. But, if biodiversity is destroyed, our ability to use medicine would go dry, unable to help the sick. An example that scientists found was that about 50,00 cone snail toxins have been shown to create powerful drugs (the good kind). Biomedicines have been growing at an extraordinary pace, and the ecosystem is to thank. But if biodiversity is taken away, there won't be any medicine to use.

*Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world's oceans, the observed incidences of which have been increasing since oceanographers began noting them in the 1970s. These occur near inhabited coastlines, where aquatic life is most concentrated. (The vast middle portions of the oceans which naturally have little life are not considered "dead zones".) The term can also be applied to the identical phenomenon in large lakes.

Gases and Climate Change

Hypothesis: If the rubbing alcohol in the bottle is lit on fire, then it will burn up until the bottle is gone.

Observations: The alcohol burnt up, shooting the bottle very fast to the teacher's desk. The alcohol burnt up, leaving the bottle unharmed. More like a rocket then a fire bomb.

Combustion: The effect that greenhouse gases have is by catching and trying to release heat by sun rays. Heat inside the Earth will be reflected back towards the surface, due to a thick atmosphere (about 70% reflected back). Greenhouse gases such as methane and CO2 increase the chance of heat staying. The amount increases when there is a human population.

Hypothesis: If the Co2 will be introduced with flame, then the amount of Carbon Dioxide will increase.

Observations: The trapped Carbon Dioxide put out the flames. Poor candles didn't stand a chance.

Co2 Gas: Although Environmentalists may think that Carbon Dioxide is a poison to the environment, it really is part of it. The carbon is used a lot in nature, such as photosynthesis and creating oxygen (very important). This may sound good, but humans have overused it. Stored carbon in fossil fuels and the ocean has been drilled up and released in tight groups. THis explains the increase in temperature for Earth. 

Hypothesis: If the hydrogen is exposed to flame, it will release energy and give out flames.

Observations: The zinc separated the hydrogen and chlorine and then it was lit. The hydrogen immediately caught on fire and  burst into flames. This continued until all the free flowing gas was burnt.

Renewable Resources: The power of the ocean is a little old fashion but in generates energy. Power created by tidal and waves create a higher electrical power than hydro-electric power, and just as clean. The tidal power is comparable to wind, because it is just as effective, but not as expensive. Hydro-electricity is 1/5 of today's power, but is very expensive. Solar energy is renewable and can generate electricity. Biofuels grow fast, but it is uncertain if that its effective enough to become an energy producer. Lastly, geothermal heating can be used as a heating source. This energy is on going and is renewable.


Hypothesis: If the hated can is placed in the ice water, then, the can will swell up.


Observations: Nothing happened. Zip. Nada.


Hypothesis: If the heated can is placed in the water, then it will swell up.


Observations: The can immediately crumbled up into a small ball form.

Chernobyl Lingers on

Article link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/743879.stm

Summary: Since the Chernobyl incident, the city of Pripyat has been covered in a blanket of radioactivity. This radioactivity has been hanging around Chernobyl for almost 25 years now. Yet, scientists have made a discovery that may support that Chernobyl may still not be safe to be a habitat. Fish near Chernobyl's waters have been showing a high amount of Caesium. Caesium is radioactive, and the fish showed high  amounts of it. This shows that Chernobyl will still be radioactive for several more years than predicted.

1: Do you think that because of the high amount of Caesium, Chernobyl is still radioactive?

2: Do you think that fish will be an accurate comparison to fish?

3: If animals are alive, do you think that we can live there right now?

Questions in Chernobyl

1: Name five countries that received higher levels of radiation when the nuclear power plant exploded.

2: How many people immediately died from Chernobyl?

3: What will a Thyroid Operation cure?

4: How much of the Ukrainian budget is being used for Chernobyl?

5: Pripyat had a population of how much before it was destroyed?

Love Canal Questions

Love Canal Video Part 2

   1.) What caused the toxic waste to begin being pushed to the surface?
   2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?
   3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?

Hazards of Oil Dispersants

Chemical Dispersants

Questions

*Why was BP hiding these chemicals from the public when the spill was occurring?

*Will getting rid of a toxin, with a toxin help the environment?

*Do you think that a chemical dispersant will get rid and dispose of all of the oil, or will some remain?

Chemical Dispersants

Questions
*Why was BP hiding these chemicals from the public when the spill was occurring?
*Will getting rid of a toxin, with a toxin help the environment?
*Do you think that a chemical dispersant will get rid and dispose of all of the oil, or will some remain?