What resources do the primary producers in the food web require?

What resources do the primary producers in the food web require?

What resources do the primary producers in the food web require? 150 150 Nyagu

BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 1 Assignment 8 This assignment has multiple parts, some will be completed during your lab and submitted to Peerceptiv as a group for peer feedback. After receiving feedback, individually you will modify, if you choose the components you submitted as a group and complete the additional components required for your final individual UMLearn submission. Parts 1 – 4 will be completed as a group by the end of your Zoom lab period. Parts 5 – 8 will be completed individually after the Zoom lab period. Part 1 – Food Web Creation In your small groups, you will work together to create a food web of how the species interact based on the energy flow information presented in Figure 8.1. To do this, your group will first answer the questions on page 6 (to assist you with creating the food web, will not be evaluated) together to gain a better understanding of the species present in the community, this will undoubtedly assist you in both Peerceptiv & final submission. You will use the provided PowerPoint file to create your food web. Your food web doesn’t have to include all possible species (and likely will not), but must include: 1. Three separate food chains – A food chain in this assignment will be defined as having at least 3 species, and the top predator of a food chain does not need to be the apex predator. 2. One food chain must contain 5 species 3. Connections linking the three food chains together 4. Two primary producers 5. One apex predator You will provide a figure caption for your theoretical food web with the selected food chains your group chooses to include. Part 2 – Food Web Interpretation Questions Based on the food web your group creates, you will answer the following questions in the group submission PowerPoint file. The questions are: 1. What resources do the primary producers in the food web require? How are both populations able to grow in the Arctic marine environment? 2. Identify two competing species in your food web at the primary consumer level 3. Identify two competing species at a different trophic level in your food web. Part 3 – Hypotheses Formation © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 2 Now that you have constructed your food web and are beginning to describe the characteristics your group will formulate two hypotheses based on one of the following scenarios that will exert influences on your diagrammed food web. To formulate these hypotheses; you can use either of the scenarios and if desired, you may base both hypotheses on the same scenarios. You will not need to specify directly which scenario you are formulating the hypothesis from. Your hypothesis may include two species, and if it does you will specify the type of interaction and if it is direct or indirect, within the hypothesis table in the group submission PowerPoint. Remember a valid scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and written as an explanatory statement. A hypothesis is written as a statement that explains an observation or as tentative answer to a question. Words that should be avoided in the hypothesis statement include may, should and will; the statement no longer becomes falsifiable. Scenario A) Increased ocean temperatures have allowed for range expansion of the Pacific sand lance, a fish species. This species feeds on krill and benthic invertebrates. The sand lance populations have greatly increased over the past couple years. Scenario B) Increased seal and whale mortalities have been observed due to an unknown pathogen. Harbour seals and killer whales are less susceptible than sea lions and Humpbacks. Part 4 – Theoretical Graphs to Support Hypotheses With your three formulated hypotheses, as a group you will diagram the theoretical results, if you were to conduct an ecological field experiment, that would support your hypotheses. Label both axes! You can complete these graphs in the Group Submission PowerPoint file by moving the pre-made text boxes and drawing the expected relationships. END OF GROUP SUBMISSION Part 5 – Food Web Figure Once you have received reviews of your group’s submission you will modify, if necessary, the food web that was originally constructed. Your final food web that you submit will need to meet the same five criteria outlined in Part 1 with a descriptive caption. Part 6 – Food Web Summary In your own words, you will summarize the food web structure. You will need to modify any answers your group submitted in response to Part 2. Copying and Pasting these answers directly will result in grade of zero. Your summary should describe the entire food web, you do not need to highlight all the interspecific relationships (e.g., competitors) but you will want © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 3 to discuss which ones you hypothesize to be the most important to the food web. This summary should be a single paragraph and not be more than 300 words. Part 7 – Single hypothesis and associated theoretical graph After receiving peer reviews, you will individually select a SINGLE hypothesis that you think is the strongest, you may modify or formulate a new hypothesis if you choose. You only will submit one hypothesis for the final submission with the associated theoretical graph that would support your written hypothesis. Additionally, you will write a brief (2 sentences) rationale of why you choose the hypothesis and why it would be important to test. Part 8 – Review Reflection 1. Describe the most useful feedback you received and explain how you incorporated it into this final version. If you did not take any suggestions from your reviewers describe why not. 2. Explain whether reading the reviews of your group submission or reviewing another group’s submission was more helpful to your understanding of food web dynamics. © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 4 Submitting Your Assignment This assignment will be submitted to Peerceptiv (GROUP) and UMLearn (INDIVIDUAL) after the Peerceptiv review process. There are additional review reflection questions and summary that you will need to include in your Individual UMLearn submission. Review the rubric for what is being evaluated in each submission stage. Peerceptiv A. Submission (GROUP)– Submit your work to the Peerceptiv link located in the UMLearn Lab 8 content folder. ONLY one group member needs to submit to Peerceptiv. Remember do not put your names in the document as we want the review process to be anonymous. To avoid any technical hassle, we are also asking that the same individual submit the file to your UMLearn group folder with the names of the group members listed in the textbook. This UMLearn file submission will not be graded but can be there if the instructors or group members need in the event of technical mishaps. Submissions MUST include parts 1 – 4 as a single PDF document to Peerceptiv. Due TODAY at the END of your lab period (i.e., 11:30 AM, 5:30 PM, or 10:00 PM). B. Peer Review (INDIVIDUAL) – You will be automatically assigned 1 group document to review 2 hours after your lab (i.e., 1:30, 7:30 or 11:59 PM). When you review, you will be providing feedback and commenting on which hypothesis you believe to be the strongest and why to assist your peers in selecting the best hypothesis for their final submission, in return, your peers will be doing the same for your group document. Due 2 days plus 2 hours after your lab (i.e., 1:30 PM, 7:30 PM, or 11:59 PM). C. Back Evaluations (not this time) UMLearn D. Submission (INDIVIDUAL) – Take the feedback you get from your peers and improve upon your document if necessary and choose which hypothesis you believe is the strongest to include. In addition to your food web, hypothesis and associated theoretical graph you have completed, you will also complete the additional components in for the UMLearn submission. Submissions MUST include parts 5-8 as a single PDF document to Peerceptiv. Due 4 days plus 2 hours after your lab (i.e., 1:30 PM, 7:30 PM, or 11:59 PM). © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 5 Table 8.1. Feeding relationships of the Pacific Northwest marine ecosystem in a given area of the Canadian west coast. Green boxes Dogfish Shark Dungeness Crab Harbour seal Herring Humpback Whale Kelp Killer whale Krill Mussels Phytoplankton Sculpin Sea Lion Sea Star Sea Urchin © Scott & Debets x x x Sea Urchin Sea Star Sea Lion Sculpin Phytoplankt on Mussels Krill Killer whale Kelp Humpback Whale Herring Harbour Seal Dungeness Crab Dogfish Shark Chinook Salmon Benthic Invertebrate s Brown Bear Consumer Species Bald Eagle Benthic Invertebrates Brown Bear Chinook Salmon Bald Eagle represent prey (column) that are an energy source for each consumer species (row). For example, bald eagle get energy from chinook salmon, Dungeness crab, herring and sculpin. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 6 Table 8.2 Food Web Planning Questions Food Web Construction Questions Question 1 Question 2 There are two species present that are autotrophic. Which two are they? How can you tell? Where will they likely go in your food web? There are two species present in this community that are Apex predators (top predators). Which two are they? How can you tell? Where will they likely go in your food web? Food chain length can vary. What is one food chain that includes only 3 species? Question 3 Define another unique food chain, separate from that one you identified in Question 3. Question 4 Food chain length can vary. What is one food chain that includes 5 or more species? How can it be connected to your two other food chains. Question 5 How would you connect the three unique food chains you identified in Questions 3 – 5. Question 6 Question 7 *should be completed after reviews are received* Which species (one or more) do you think is most important to the food web? How can you tell? © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 7 Assignment Evaluation This lab is worth 4.5% of your BIOL 1030 final grade. Please read through the rubric entirely and carefully so you can include all the components in your submissions. Peerceptiv Submission – Group 40% Writing Grade 80% of Peerceptiv Grade Review Grade 20% of Peerceptiv Grade Task Grade 0% of Peerceptiv Grade *NO BACKEVALUATIONS* UMLearn Submission – Individual 60% Graded from the UMLearn Rubric provided below. There are additional questions you will answer for final submission to UMLearn © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 8 Rubrics Peerceptiv Rubric ( /40 marks) Part 1 – Food Web Figure ( /12 marks) Descriptive Caption 2 marks- The figure caption is numerically labelled; contains a short 1-2 sentence description of figure contents that doesn’t contain excess detail; and the caption is placed underneath the figure. 1.5 marks – The caption is present but missing one of the above criteria. 1 mark – The caption is present but missing two of the above criteria. 0.5 mark – The caption is present but missing three of the above criteria. 0 marks – The caption is not clearly identified, communicated or is missing. Clarity 4 marks – The food web is easy to read and identify the relationships among all species. 3 marks – The food web is easy to read and identify the relationships among most of the species. 2 marks – The food web identifies the relationships among all species but is not easy to interpret. 1 mark – The food web identifies the relationships among most species but is not easy to interpret. 0 marks – The food web doesn’t identify relationships among the species and is difficult to interpret. Correctness 6 marks – All feeding relationships are correct based on table 8.1 4 marks – Two of three food chains correctly identify the relationships based on table 8.1 2 marks – One of three food chains correctly identifies the relationships based on table 8.1 1 mark – There are numerous errors in the identification of the relationships based on table 8.1 0 marks – None of the feeding relationships are correct based on table 8.1 Part 2 – Food Web Questions ( /8 marks) Clarity Accuracy 4 marks – The answers to all three questions are clearly written. 3 marks – Only two of the answers are clearly written. 2 marks – Only one of the answers is clearly written. 1 mark – The responses are not clearly outlined/ contain too much excess information. 0 marks – There are no responses. 4 marks – The answers to all three questions are accurate based on the food web and table 8.1 3 marks – Only two of the answers are accurate based on the food web and table 8.1 2 marks – Only one of the answers are accurate based on the food web and table 8.1 1 mark – The responses are not accurate based on the food web and table 8.1 0 marks – There are no responses. © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 Part 3 – Hypotheses ( /12 marks *6 marks each) BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual Written as an Explanatory Statement 9 2 Marks – The hypothesis explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicating expected results 1.5 Marks – The hypothesis partially explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicating expected results 1 Mark – The hypothesis does not fully explain an observation 0.5 Mark – The hypothesis indicates expected results and is written as a prediction 0 Marks – There is no hypothesis Testable 2 Marks – The hypothesis is focused, and it is clear which two variables could be tested 1.5 Marks – The hypothesis is too broad and suggests multiple variables that could be tested 1 Mark – The hypothesis only indicates one part of the relationship that could be tested 0.5 Mark – The hypotheses does not clearly indicate what could be tested 0 Marks – There is no hypothesis Clearly Outlined 2 Marks – The hypothesis is written concisely, focused and is easy to follow 1.5 Marks – Hypothesis statements is too long 1 Mark – Hypothesis statement is unfocused 0.5 Mark – Hypothesis statement is too long and unfocused 0 Marks – There is no hypothesis Part 4 – Theoretical Graphs ( /8 marks *4 marks each) Clarity Correctness 4 marks – Two of the graphs are clearly outlined and contain the appropriate labelling. 3 marks – Two of the graphs are clearly outlined but contain the inappropriate labelling. 2 marks – One of the graphs are clearly outlined and contain the appropriate labelling. 1 mark – One of the graphs are clearly outlined and contain the appropriate labelling. 0 mark – None of the graphs are clearly outlined and contain the appropriate labelling. 4 marks – Two of the graphs are accurate and match the associated hypotheses. 2 marks – One of the graphs are accurate and match the associated hypotheses. 0 mark – None of the graphs are accurate and match the associated hypotheses. . © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 10 UMLearn Rubric ( /40 marks) Part 5 – Food Web ( /12 marks) *Uses same rubric as Peerceptiv rubric* Part 6 – Summary ( /12 marks) Clarity Accuracy Correctness 4 marks – The summary is clearly written. 3 marks – The summary is well written but contains some additional information that is redundant 2 marks – The summary is well written but contains multiple sentences that don’t describe figure 1 mark – The summary is not written clearly, and doesn’t describe the figure 0 marks – There are no responses. 4 marks – The summary accurately described the relationships in the presented food web. 3 marks – The summary accurately described the relationships in the presented food web. 2 marks – The summary accurately described the relationships in the presented food web. 1 mark – The summary accurately described the relationships in the presented food web. 0 marks – There is no summary. 4 marks – The summary is correct based on the feeding relationships in table 8.1 3 marks – The summary has one error based on the feeding relationships in table 8.1 2 marks – The summary has two errors based on the feeding relationships in table 8.1 1 mark – The summary has three or more based on the feeding relationships in table 8.1 0 marks – There is no summary. Hypothesis ( /10 marks) *Uses same rubric as Peerceptiv with the additional component below* Written as an Explanatory Statement Testable 2 marks – The hypothesis explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicating expected results 1.5 marks – The hypothesis partially explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicating expected results 1 Mark – The hypothesis does not fully explain an observation 0.5 Mark – The hypothesis indicates expected results and is written as a prediction 0 Marks – There is no hypothesis 2 marks – The hypothesis is focused, and it is clear which two variables could be tested 1.5 Marks – The hypothesis is too broad and suggests multiple variables that could be tested 1 Mark – The hypothesis only indicates one part of the relationship that could be tested 0.5 Mark – The hypotheses does not clearly indicate what could be tested 0 Marks – There is no hypothesis Continued on Next Page © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 11 Clearly Outlined 2 marks – The hypothesis is written concisely, focused and is easy to follow and is clearly connected to one of the two scenarios. 1.5 marks – Hypothesis statements is too long 1 mark – Hypothesis statement is unfocused 0.5 mark – Hypothesis statement is too long and unfocused 0 marks – There is no hypothesis Rationale 2 marks – A short statement is included that clearly indicates why this would be an important hypothesis to test. 1.5 marks – A short statement is included that indicates why this would be an important hypothesis to test but not clearly. 1 mark – A short statement is included and written clearly but does not state why this would be an important hypothesis to test. 0.5 marks – A statement is included but is too long and does not clearly indicate why this is an important hypothesis 0 marks – No statement is included that explains the importance of the hypothesis Graph Clarity Graph Correctness 2 marks – The graph is clearly outlined and contain the appropriate labelling. 1 mark – The graph is clearly outlined contains inappropriate/missing labelling. 0 mark – The graph is not clearly outlined 2 marks – The graph accurately supports the hypothesis. 1 mark – The graph has the correct labels as identified in the hypothesis, but the demonstrated relationship would not support the hypothesis. 0 mark – The graph inaccurately identifies the variables and would not support the hypothesis Part 8 – Review Reflection ( /4 marks) Review Reflection 4 marks – A reflective statement identifies the most useful feedback and describes how it was incorporate or is justified why it was not and indicated whether reviewing or receiving reviews was more helpful. 2 marks – A reflective statement identifies the most useful feedback and indicated whether reviewing or receiving reviews was more helpful but doesn’t indicate how the comments were incorporated. 1 mark – A reflective statements outlines feedback that was useful but does not describe why or how it was incorporated or whether reviewing or receiving reviews was most helpful. 0 marks – No reflective statement regarding the reviews received was included. © Scott & Debets Winter 2021 BIOL 1030 – Lab Manual 12 Copyright notice – This handout is the intellectual property of Kevin Scott and Cassandra Debets ©2021 and is made available for private study only and must not be distributed in any format without permission. Do not upload copyrighted works to any note…