Guppy Simulation

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

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.
Poecilia reticulata
It is male
The average is 1.4 inches
It has the colors of Hallows Eve (Jaloguin) along with white, yellow, and blue.

3. After viewing the predator gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s common name, scientific name, and origin?
Fat sleeper
Dormitator maculatus
Southern North America, Bahamas, and Latin America

4. View the guppy’s habitats, what habitat conditions would affect the predator populations? If it a deep section of a stream, then it can be full of predators. But if it’s a dam, then there will be little to no predators. Finally, in a small pool, there would be the smallest and least effect population of predators.

5. Who is John Endler? What did he study and where did he study it?
John Endler was a scientist that studied wild guppies. He studied them in different streams and different parts of the same stream.

6. For each of the three stream areas, describe the guppy coloration:

Pool 1: Brightly multi-colored fish with large scales.

Pool 2: Medium coloration on body and tail, with medium size spots.

Pool 3: Drab coloration with very small spots concentrated 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) If there are more predators, then the gene of bright coloration in guppies have less of a chance of being passed on to future generations.
Guppy Simulation

% of Brightest Guppies
(10 generations) % of Bright Guppies
(10 generations) % of Drab Guppies
(10 generations) % of Drabbest Guppies
(10 generations)
Trial 1
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus %45 %29 %24 %3
Trial 2
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara %0 %87 %13 %0
Trial 3
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid %0 %0 %8 %92
Trial 4
Guppy: Mostly Bright
Predators: 30 Rivulus %38 %52 %4 %6
Trial 5
Guppy: Mostly Drab
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid %0 %0 %0 %100


Summary
8. Describe how predators influence guppy coloration.
Since predators can see brightly colored guppies easier, they tend to eat more of them, leaving more dull colored guppies to pass on their genes.

9. Was your hypothesis correct, use your data to justify your answer.
Yes, because when we added more predators, more dull guppies survived to pass on their genes, but when there wasn’t as many predators then the brightly colored guppies were dominated.

10. What does it mean that “male guppies live in a crossfire between their enemies and their would be mates”?
This phrase means that males have to go out into the open to look for mate, but when they do that, they are easy pickings for predators, also known as enemies.

11. Why do you think guppies in different areas of the stream have different coloration?
Since some parts of streams have more predators than others, so in the places where there are not many predators, bright guppies will thrive. But if the location in the stream has more predators, the bright guppies will be eaten and the dull ones will thrive.

12. What would happen to mostly drab guppies that were placed in a stream with very few predators?
The drab guppies would not be as successful as the few bright ones, so, over time, the bright ones would become more common.

13. What would happen to brightly colored guppies that were placed in a stream with many predators?
The bright colored guppies would be eaten relatively quick, while the dull ones would eventually would become much more common.

Conservation For The People

This article from Scientific American states that current way of protecting biodiversity isn't working very well, which is just protecting biodiversity hot spots. However, since these "hot spots" don't always have a diverse animal populations, protecting them isn't working out so well. So we should try a different approach. This other approach is taking the environments that have a large impact on the human species. By doing this, we won't hurt people by moving them out of their homes or anything like that. Also, we may only need to save the species that help people. Some of these environments are forests, coral reefs, wetlands, and mangroves. By protecting all of these certain ecosystems, we can preserve biodiversity and have it also benefit us humans. And not only will we be protecting the cute and popular animals, but we will also protect the rare species. In all, this article is pretty much supporting biodiversity as anthropocentric, with all the talk of the environment only being worth saving when it actually supports mankind.

Biodiversity

1. Preserving local biodiversity have global effects because much of our resources come from different parts of the world. If India where to be hit by a flood(because of logging, areas can be hit my monsoons much more frequently and more severely) then the world economy would be effected.
2. Like all organisms, people need the rest of the world, all the plants and animals that help us to survive. Take them away, and we slowly die out with them, much like a domino effect. When one falls down, more fall down with it, and that rule still applies to humans, even if we thin of us as superior to the rest of the world.
3. Preserving biodiversity if important because many of the poorest people in the world depend on on biodiversity for food, fodder, or even medicine! Take biodiversity away, and we have a huge crisis on our hands with people in countries like India going hungry. Also, medicine is found in many type of plants, take away those and we could be preventing the human race from finding vital medicine for our future.

Gases and Climate Change

Combustion- Hypothesis: When we light the rubbing alcohol. it will give off polluting smokish-gas. What Happened: The alcohol inside of the bottle ignited and it blasted off with a whooshing sound and filled with fire.
Combustion causes climate change because it adds to the green house gases, causing the world to heat up.

CO2 Gas- Hypothesis: I think that this gas willl ignite. Well, it didn't ignite. It just put the fire out. This happened because the CO2 deprived the fire of oxygen, which is vital for a flame to burn. It is argued that CO2 in the ocean is being released because of evaporation and rising climates. And since CO2 is a green house gas, it is causing the climate to get hotter and hotter.

Hydrogen Gas- Hypothesis: I think that the Hydrogen will ignite like the first expiriment, because it is used as fuel. My hypothesis was curect, the H burned when fire was introduced.

Fossil fuel is declining so that instead of using one barrel of oil and getting a hundred, you use 50 barrels of oil, and only get 50 back. This is called net energy.
Ocean power has to do with the movement of waves going up and down, therefore creating electricity.
Biofuels are like fossil fuels, but it takes more fossil fuel to create energy equal to biofuels.
Solar electricity is one of the most popular sources of renewable energy. All of the power on the earth, solar power is the most common. Wind power is one of the fastest growing energy sectors. It is very efficient energy source.
Geothermal energy is energy created at the Earth's core.

Air Pressure-Hypothesis: The gas will turn to ice crystals. Well, nothing happened at all. Now we are going to do a second experiment. Hypothesis: The can is going to blast into the air when we place it in the ice water upside-down. That didn't happen either. Instead, the can kind of went *plink* and crushed into itself.

Changes In Children DNA

DNA Change In Children

Many children of liquedators that helped clean up the radiation have been shown to have various mutations. The most likely cause of this would be that they inherited some radiation from the parents, who received large amounts of radiation. These children are tested for these changes in DNA, the children's siblings who had been conceived before their parents' exposure served as internal controls, in addition to external controls from families who had not been exposed. There was a high count in DNA change, but we don't know if there are long teem effects of these DNA changes, but they have not been ruled out. But, as time went on, many of these changes Yet there armer many facts that put down this theory, including the amount of time in-between the exposure to radiation and the time of the conception. One of the ideas suggest that the cause of these mutations are of internal radiation. It shows a massive failure in the modelling of radiation risk by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This is mostly from the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, single massive bursts of gamma radiation delivered externally. But the ICRP studies are absolutely silent on the effects of internal radiation.
Questions:
1) Why are the children of liquedators(people the tried cleaning Chornobyl) having changes in their DNA?
2) How are they tested for DNA change? Or, to word it better, who is their DNA compared to?
3) What evidence is against this theory about DNA change?

Chornobyl Questions

1. Where did the incident take place?
2. What caused the explosion to happen?
3. How did the disaster effect the people that lived in the area?
4. What makes this disaster unlike any other in the history of mankind?
5. What did the Russian government do about the disaster?

Questions for the Panel

1. Why do you think that the Love Canal is safe when there is still chemicals in the canal?
2. How do you know for sure that all of the chemicals in the ground and air are uncontaminated?
3. Why do you think that the area is not same when we have been cleaning it for more than three years?
4. If the EPA says that the Love Canal is a safe place, then why do you think that it is not.
5. The Love Canal is the most tested real-estate in America, so why is it not safe?

8-30-10 Catalyst

The big blizzard of 77 that overflowed the canal and caused the chemicals to become much more of a problem. When it melted and all the water drained, it took all of the chemicals with it. Cancer is one of the main health hazards that all the chemicals caused, but along with that came other defects in human health, like mutations in newborns. Other than putting people's health at risk, the chemicals also effected the environment in different ways such as polluting the rivers and creeks so that they cannot support life. They make trees and plants die, and present health risks for animals.

Hazards of Oil Dispersants

To put it frankly, we are poisoning our oceans with many different types of materials. But one of the biggest poisons are oil dispersants. Even though they are suppose to be helping our oceans by cleaning up oil, they might not be doing just that. These dispersants cause internal bleeding, and hurt the same organs oil does, such as nerves, kidneys, blood, and the liver. They also cause damage to gills, and cause chemical pneumonia. In fact, when mixed together, oil and certain dispersants (like corexit) are more toxic then when they are separate. Such as dispersants can break down lipid membranes, therefor making it easier for the oil to get into the organism. What makes matters even worse is the fact that the coral reefs will be hit the hardest, and they hold many endangered species. Also, when air breathing animals go above water to breathe, they breathe in toxic fumes. All of the dispersant's can cause birth defects, no matter how they get into the organism. So what we are basically trying to do is solve one problem, but in the process, we create an even bigger problem. That is possible because when we put the dispersants(supposedly the answer to the oil spill) we are creating an even more toxic mix.
I believe that corexit and other dispersant's are more dangerous than oil because they can seep into through your skin(as was previously stated) and damage an organism that way. They have petroleum, metal, and arsenic among other toxic ingredients that BP refuses to mention.

Chemical Dispersants

1. How much damage do the dispersants do to plants?
2. What are the main ingredients in these chemicals?
3. Now how many of these are harmful?