Exam (elaborations)
Ecology 5th Edition Bowman Test Bank
- Course
- Institution
Ecology 5th Edition Bowman Test Bank
[Show more]
Content preview
E c o l o g y 5 t h E d i t i o n B o w m a nT e s t B a n k © 2021 Oxford University Press Online Analyzing Data to accompany Ecology , Fifth Edition Bowman • Hacker 1.1 What Are the Combined Effects of Introduced Predators and Parasites on Amphibian Populations ? Suppose that researchers wanted to examine the combined effects of an introduced predator (a trout) and the trematode parasite Ribeiroia on amphibian populations. To do this, they established frog populations in each of 40 artificial ponds. Each pond was assigned at random to one of four treatments (10 ponds pe r treatment) : 1) neither trout or parasites were added to the pond (the “No trout, no p arasite” treatment); 2) no trout were added but parasites were added (“No trout, parasite added” ); 3) trout were added but parasites were not added (“Trout added, no par asite”); and 4) both trout and parasites were added (“Trout added, parasite added” ). Each pond contained refug ia where tadpoles could avoid attack by trout , to avoid fish predators driving frog populations to extinction in an artificial pond , unlike what typically occurs in a natural pond. After two breeding seasons, the researchers estimated the density of frogs in each pond. The results are shown in the table. Treatment Average frog density (per 10 m2 of pond surface area) No trout, no parasite 180.2 No trout, parasite added 111.4 Trout added, no parasite 125.8 Trout added, parasite added 14.3 Question 1. Construct a bar graph showing the average density of frogs for each of the four treatments (see Web Stats Review 1.1.2 for a description of bar graphs). Answer: © 2021 Oxford University Press Question 2. Independent of any possible effects of trout, estimate the reduction in frog density caused by the addition of parasites. Justify the calculations used to answer this question. Answer: To remove any possible effects of trout and estimate how parasites alone affected frog density, the average frog density in the “ No Trout, no parasite ” treatment is compared to the average frog density in the “ No Trout, parasite added ” treatment. Based on the results in the table, parasites alone reduced frog density by 180.2 – 111.4 = 68.8 frogs per 10 m2 of pond surface area. Question 3. Independent of any possible effects of parasites, estimate the reduction in frog density caused by the addition of trout. Justify the calculations used to answer this question and compare the relative effect s of trout and parasites on amphibian populations . Answer: To re move any possible effects of parasites and estimate how trout alone affected frog density, the average frog density in the “ No Trout, no parasite ” treatment is compared to the average frog density in the “ Trout added, no parasite ” treatment. Based on the r esults in the table, trout alone reduced frog density by 180.2 – 125.8 = 54.4 frogs per 10 m2. In this experiment, parasites reduced frog densities by a slightly greater amount (68.8 frogs per 10 m2) than did trout (54.4 frogs per 10 m2). Question 4. Descr ibe the combined effects of parasites and trout on frog densities. Interpret this result and suggest a hypothesis for why this may have occurred. Answer: When both parasites and trout were added, frog densities dropped by an average of 180.2 – 14.3 = 165.9 frogs per 10 m2. To interpret this result, recall that the reduction in frog density caused by parasites alone was 68.8 frogs per 10 m2, while the reduction in frog density caused by trout alone was 54.4 frogs per 10 m2. Thus, when both parasites and trou t were added, we might expect that frog densities would have dropped by a total of 68.8 + 54.4 = 123.2 © 2021 Oxford University Press frogs per 10 m2. However, the addition of both parasites and trout caused frog densities to drop by 165.9 frogs per 10 m2—a value that is about 35% highe r than our expected value of 123.2 frogs per 10 m2. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout , thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller elyshakreiger. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $26.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
71947 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now