biolabresultslab5

Biolabresultslab5 - Karlo Natonton Bio 106 44 Results Weight The mean weight of the survivors and the victims were about 0.01different The ranges

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Karlo Natonton Bio 106 - 44 Results: Weight: The mean weight of the survivors and the victims were about 0.01different. The ranges between the maximum and the minimum of each population were equal at 0.04. After performing the two sample t-test for unequal variances, it was determined that the p-value was 0.00025 which is less than 0.05 (table 1). Therefore, the p-value is significantly different. Number of Dorsal Plates: The mean number of dorsal plates for both survivors and victims were almost identical. The mean number of dorsal plates for survivors was 7 while the mean number of dorsal plates for victims was 7.08. There was only one isopod in the victim population that had 8 dorsal plates while the rest of the isopods, survivors included, all had 7 dorsal plates. The two-tail p-value equals 0.16, which is higher than 0.05 (table 2). This means that the data is not significantly different. Length: The mean length in millimeters varied slightly between the survivor and victim isopod populations. The survivors had a mean length of 8.68mm while the victims had a mean of 7.92mm. The minimum length was equal for both populations at 7mm. After performing the two sample t-test for unequal variances, the p-value equaled 0.02 which is less than the alpha (0.05) meaning that our value is significantly different. (Table 3) Speed: Our victims seemed to move at a slower pace as the survivors. The mean speed of the survivor isopods was 0.50 cm/sec while the mean speed of the victim isopods was 0.34 cm/sec. The fastest isopod clocked in at 1.00 cm/sec. When the two-sample t-test was performed, it was determined that the p-value equaled 0.03 which is just 0.02 less than the alpha of 0.05. Our statistics are not significantly different based on the p-value from the t-test. (Table 4)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Karlo Natonton Bio 106 - 44 Discussion: The null hypothesis for weight was that there would be no significant difference in values between the survivors and the victims. The alternative hypothesis was that there would be a difference and that the survivors would weigh more than the victims. Because our p-value was 0.00025, the data was significantly different and the null hypothesis can be rejected. As a result, the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Looking at the raw data and the averages, the alternative hypothesis is further proven. The mean weight of the survivors was 0.01 higher than that of the victims. Sources of error involving measuring weight include not calibrating the scales and misreading the scales. Further studies on variation and selection on weight have shown that
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/03/2011 for the course BIOL 106 taught by Professor Allisonmiller during the Spring '11 term at Saint Louis.

Page1 / 13

Biolabresultslab5 - Karlo Natonton Bio 106 44 Results Weight The mean weight of the survivors and the victims were about 0.01different The ranges

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online