Biomass Essay, Research Paper

Many factors contribute to the diverseness of life in an environment. The

handiness of foods and sunshine, along with other factors that play a

polar function in finding what and how much life an country can prolong. While

analyzing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it came to my attending that the

classical pyramid form of the manufacturer, C1, C2, C3, biomass pyramid did small

to take into history the sum of detrital input. I hypothesized that the

sum detrital input greatly effected the figure of C1, C2, and C3 consumers

and therefore the overall biodiversity of an ecosystem. Further, if you could happen a

test-bed where detrital input was the lone existent difference between two similar

ecosystems you would happen that beings of each ecosystem would be adapted to

the curious conditions. This version would take you to happen huge differences

in the systematic groups associated with each ecosystem. With this in head, I

foremost set out to happen two similar ecosystems were I could prove this hypothesis.

Second, to try, categorise and compare the diverseness of these ecosystems

along systematic lines. Following, I planned to utilize several of the widely accepted

diverseness indexes ( Simpson? s Index, Shannon? s Index the Chi-Square Test ) to

comparison statistically, the diverseness of my ecosystems. Scientific Law provinces

that in order to prove the effects of one factor in an equation you must

extinguish all other factors. In order to prove the detrital base as the modification

factor, all other restricting agents must be eliminated. In a field experiment this

is technically impossible ; though it is possible to come near by taking two

ecosystems that are really similar. In order to maintain this experiment every bit simple as

possible the ecosystem chosen had to be about self contained and little. The

smaller and more contained the ecosystem the less opportunity for outside input that

could destruct our consequences. Alazan and Bernaldo brook provided merely the type of

test-bed needed for this experiment. Both are 3rd order brook in the same

geographic country that are capable to same conditions and clime conditions, but

differ well in the sum of debris available. ( Fleet ) Procedure

Alazan brook is a 3rd order watercourse that feeds into the Angelina River. It is

bordered by several species of autochthonal trees that form a little gallery of

overhanging subdivisions. This gallery consisted of ( pine, oak, sweetgum trees ) and

was limited to a scope of about 20 five pess from the border of the watercourse.

These gallery trees are surrounded by unfastened cowss croping Fieldss covered by

short grasses and an occasional chaparral coppice. Alazan creek ranged from 10 to

15 pess broad with a H2O deepness of six inches to two pess. The H2O was

by and large clear, and flowed at a alert 10 to twelve mile per hr gait. The

creek underside was chiefly sand with small or no clay. Turbitity was low to

reasonably low and the brook had a high O content. Detrital input was low

and limited to foliages from the gallery trees. Bernaldo brook is a 3rd order

brook that likewise empties into the Angelina River. Bernaldo creek differs

well in that it is wholly surrounded by typical E Texas piney

forests. ( The peculiar country that samples were taken from appeared to be

comparatively low lying in comparing to the environing forests. ) It is similarly 10

to fifteen pess broad but, is well deeper at four to eight pess than

Alazan brook. Bernaldo creek flows at a much slower gait, about six to

eight stat mis per hr. The underside of Bernaldo brook consists mostly of clay,

which gives the H2O a darker colour. Overall turbitity is high and overall

O content is low. Human perturbation at both brook was minimum. Although at

Alazan creek the environing country was used for croping animate beings and at Bernaldo

creek the sight that specimen were really taken from was a concrete washout

span. Both sights appeared to be in a inundation field, one that likely becomes

inundated on a monthly footing during the rainy season. Weather conditions at the

clip of the sampling were typical of east Texas in spring, hence unusual

conditions caused by untypical conditions can be eliminated. What it boils down to

is, the lone difference between the two brook was the sum of detrital

stuff available and the conditions predicated by this difference. Get downing

the hebdomad of February 8, 1999 day-to-day 1p.m. trips were made by four lab groups to

both Alazan and Bernaldo brook. During these trips observations were made on

terrain, topography, clime, flora and specimens were taken from several

musca volitanss along each brook. The specimen were taken by sacking at assorted deepnesss and

locations. The cyberspaces used had a pore size of about 2 millimetres on four

sides and a canvas underside ( see diagram 1 ) and were attached to poles 8 pess

long. In order to take a sample, a pupil placed the scoop cyberspaces unfastened end up

watercourse and allowed the H2O and it? s contents to be strained. The cyberspaces were

so Q

uickly pulled from the H2O and the samples collected were instantly

taken to opened refuse bags and sorted through. ( see diagram 2 ) When any life

animal was found, it was placed in a aggregation jar ( labeled for the

peculiar brook it was taken from ) to be examined subsequently. The aggregation jars

contained an organic dice known as FAA. FAA is a combination of formol, ethyl

intoxicant, and Rose Bengal and shades most of the little? bugs? a red/pink

colour. The undermentioned hebdomad each lab examined the specimen jars one by one and

separated the contents by systematic groups. Once each brook? s specimens had

been counted and categorized by category period, a list was compiled for the hebdomads

sums. This list was so used to prove by comparing the cogency of our

hypothesis. ( for the complete list and breakdown see chart 1 ) Results The

hypothesis I was trying to turn out had three parts. The first and most general

was the brook with the greater detrital base would hold greater biodiversity.

This can be proven in several ways. The first is to merely number the figure of

species present in each of the two brooks and compare the consequences. This is

called profusion, which is the figure of species/taxonomic groups. In that instance

Alazan brook contained 13 species/ taxomic groups and Bernaldo brook had 17.

Therefore, Bernaldo brook which had the greater detrital base had 4 more species

than Alazan brook. A 2nd portion of numbering species is to find the

evenness of the the brook. Evenness is the step of how equally divided the

persons are among the systematic groups. Bernaldo brook had Following I used

several of the recognized diverseness indexes to statically turn out which brook had

the greater diverseness. Simpson? s Index is the figure of times it would take to

choice two persons of the same species/taxonomic group. Simpson? s index is

calculated by the equation: D = { N ( N-1 ) } / { En ( n-1 ) } Where: N=Total figure of

species/taxonomic groups n=Number of persons of a species. ( Cox ) In this

instance Bernaldo brook had a Simpson? s Index of.017712946 and Alazan brook had a

Simpson? s Index of.0092367032. That? s a difference of.0084762429, or a 91

% greater opportunity of acquiring two of the same being. This shows a

significantly greater degree of diverseness for Bernaldo brook than for Alazan.

Shannon? s Index in determined by the equation: H? =3.3219 [ log N – 1/N E ( Ni

log Ni ) ] With? N? being the entire figure of persons in the sample,

? Ni? being the figure of persons in each species/taxonomic group, and

? Tocopherol? being the summing up of all logs. ( Cox ) Bernaldo brook had a Claude shannons

Index of 2349.0908. Alazan brook had a Shannon? s Index of 1876.1630. That? s

a difference of 473.9278, or about 40 % . The proves that the diverseness in

Bernaldo brook is higher than the diverseness of Alazan brook. ? The nothing

hypothesis that the two Shannon diverseness indices come from communities equal in

diverseness can be tested by a trial a? T? test. ? This trial is used to

calculate opportunity of a type one mistake. The equation for this is: T = ( H1 & # 8211 ; H2 ) /

Sd The? T? value for the above was 3.290 significantly within our recognized

border of mistake.0005. ( t=3,290P, .0005 ) Next, the Chi-Square trial was performed,

it? s information is given by the equation: X^2=E { ( observed-expected ) } /

expected Where: expected value is given by { ( row entire x column sum ) / expansive

entire } and? E? is the summing up. ( Cox ) In this instance ( X^2 = , P, .005 )

Discussion The grounds collected in our survey significantly proves the

hypothesis. All of the assurance intervals were met and exceeded in each trial

with out exclusion. This was besides the instance with each of my equals that performed

this experiment. Although this increases the general cognition on the impact of

detrital input into a system there is more to be learned. There were three chief

beginnings of possible mistakes in this experiment. First, there needed to be more

samples taken from more topographic points and at different times of the twelvemonth. Four

samplings from one topographic point on the brook are non plenty to pull decisions about

the full system. What if the country tested was near some beginning of point

pollution? This could hold an consequence on the immediate country but cause no down

watercourse effects due to rapid interrupt down, or simple dilution. What if the country

picked was more diverse during summer? Next, an unanticipated job occurred when

the crayfish began eating many of the? bugs? in the aggregation jars. This

caused many of our species/taxonomic groups to be under represented because they

got eaten before they could be counted! What about animate beings that were so little

they slipped through the holes in the cyberspaces? What about tunneling worms? None of

these animate beings are represented in the sampling. Had these species/groups been

represented some of the statistics might hold been a small different. In the

hereafter this trial should be modified in a mode to rectify some of the

afore-mentioned jobs. With those alterations a individual could construct an even

stronger instance to back up the hypothesis.