Log in
Biology
1
answer
0
watching
83
views

Two scientists are planning to study prey capture by wolves inYellowstone National Park. The first scientist develops thishypothesis: the smartest wolves will capture the most prey. Thesecond scientist’s hypothesis is this: the fastest wolves willcapture the most prey. Which, if either of these, is a validscientific hypothesis? Why? What features, if any, are thesehypotheses missing.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
83
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Elin Hessel
Elin HesselLv2
29 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Molecular Cell Biology
8 Edition,
Lodish
ISBN: 9781464183393
Biology: Science for Life with Physiology
6 Edition,
Belk
ISBN: 9780134555430
Biology
2nd Edition, 2013
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172517
Concepts of Biology
OER Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781938168116
Essentials of Biology
5 Edition,
Mader
ISBN: 9781259660269

Related questions

The investigator never begins an experiment without a prediction of its outcome. The prediction is always based on the particular experiment designed to test a specific hypothesis. Predictions are written in the form of if/then statements: "lf the hypothesis is true, then the results of the experiment will be…"; for example, "if cactus spines reduce herbivory, then removal of the spines will result in greater surface area removed by herbivores." Making a prediction provides a critical analysis of the experimental design. If the predictions are not clear, the procedure can be modified before beginning the experiment. For the soybean experiment, the hypothesis was: "Exposure to sulfur dioxide reduces reproduction." What should the prediction be? State your prediction.

To evaluate the results of the experiment, the investigator always returns to the prediction. If the results match the prediction, then the hypothesis is supported. If the results do not match the prediction, then the hypothesis is falsified. Either way, the scientist has increased knowledge of the process being studied. Many times the falsification of a hypothesis can provide more information than confirmation does, since the ideas and data must be critically evaluated in light of new information. In the soybean experiment, the scientist may learn that the prediction is true (sulfur dioxide does reduce reproduction at the concentration tested). As a next step, the scientist may now wish to identify the particular level at which the effect is first demonstrated. Review your hypotheses for the numbered questions. Consider how you might design an experiment to test the first hypothesis. For example, you might measure auditory function by performing hearing tests or observing changes in structures in the ear. The prediction might be:

IF cell phone usage reduces auditory function (a restatement of the hypothesis),

then people who use cell phones will score lower on hearing tests than persons who do not (predicting the results from the experiment).

Now consider an experiment you might design to test the second hypothesis. How will you measure "mental advantage"?

State a prediction for this hypothesis and experiment. Use the if/then format:

The actual test of the prediction is one of the great moments in research. No matter the results, the scientist is not just following a procedure but truly testing a creative explanation derived from an interesting question.​

1. Honeybees provide 80% of the pollination services for crops, including almonds, squash, melons, alfalfa, apples, and pumpkins. Migratory beekeepers transport over 2 million hives to farmland as crops begin to flower. In 2006-2007 beekeepers were alarmed when 50% of the honeybee colonies in 26 states were lost. In fact one of the biggest mysteries was that the bees were not found dead in the hives, but rather were simply gone! Scientists have termed this Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). They are currently considering three alternative hypotheses: emerging pathogens (viruses, bacteria, and/or fungi), environmental toxins or chemicals; or abduction by humans (or aliens). Using the criteria in Lab Study B, Developing Hypotheses, select the hypothesis you would pursue as a scientist and justify your choice.

In a small paragraph, compare and summarize these two articles.

Article 1 Description

This article is an observational study, which discusses how frequency dependent selection affects two phenotypes of a predator through differential guarding response. The researcher examines the ratio of handedness of two samples of P. microlepis collected from two adjacent sites along Lake Tanganyika’s northwestern shoreline for a period of eleven years. The process of observations includes observing the correspondence between the handedness of P. microlepis and their targeted prey (Hori, 1993). The researcher carried observations to identify the direction from which P. microlepis attacked the flank of their prey. Moreover, the researcher used a gill net to catch each P. microlepis that attacked the lure. Catching the P. microbes made it possible for the researcher to observe its features and determine its handedness. The researcher determined the handedness of the scales of P. microlepis by observing the fish under a microscope.

During the period of study, Hori (1993) established that the ratio of handedness of P. microbes remained at 0.5 for each one-to-two year intervals throughout the eleven years of the study. Further investigations on temporal changes in handedness ratio showed that the ratio oscillated with amplitude of 0.15 within a five-year period (Hori, 1993). These observations were made for the two species of P. microlepis under investigation. The researcher concludes that the direction of mouth opening of scale eating cichlid fish in Lake Tanganyika is determined by the genetics of the fish. The researcher demonstrates that frequency-dependent natural selection determines the number of left-handedness or right-handedness fish. Based on researcher’s observations, when right-handed fish attack from behind, they snatch the scales from their prey from the left flank (Hori, 1993). On the other hand, when left-handed fish attack their prey from behind, they attack the right flank (Hori, 1993). Therefore, fish with rare phenotypes are more successful as predators than ones that have the more predominant phenotype. This study can be used to guide researchers who are interested in seeking ways of increasing the population of different species of fish. It can also be used as a basis for investigations on how fish type determines its survival tactics or predator tactics.

Article 2 Description

The study was an experimental analysis which sought to quantify phosphoglucose isomerase (Pgi) frequency change over a period of time and compare Pgi genotypes based on physiological responses to high temperatures and subzero thermal extremes encountered by beetles in nature. The research seeks to establish how the local climate in Bishop relates to changes in allele frequency at Pgi and other allozyme loci. It also seeks to establish if ambient temperature of beetle habitants rise to levels that expose beetles to stressful temperature. The researcher also seeks to establish how Pgi genotypes differ physiologically when exposed to subzero temperatures. By answering these questions, the researcher will establish the relationship between changes in enzyme genotype frequency and regional climate changes in addition to investigating major physiological mechanisms through which animals respond to change in climate.

To answer research questions and test research hypothesis, the researchers carried out several experiments and analyses of data. The experimental study involved collecting adult beetles that had emergent recently from pupae for a period of one year between August 1988 and August 1989 (Rank & Dahlhoff, 2002). Their genotype was determined at five different polymorphic enzyme loci. Some of the things analyzed during the study include fluctuations in climate and allele frequency change; daily and annual mean values of air temperature, Effects of Pgi genotype on HSP70 expression, and quantification of Pgi genotype on HSP70 expression among other things (Rank & Dahlhoff, 2002). The study results revealed that although beetle populations were genetically different the FST-values for 1996 were greater for each enzyme locus than those for 1998 (Rank & Dahlhoff, 2002). Moreover, researchers established that the frequency of Pgi allele had increased by 11 percent, a trend that was not observed for all the other loci investigated. Therefore, the researchers conclude that Pgi genotype differences in thermal physiology account for Pgi allele frequency change in nature. Contrary to selected hypothesis that the frequency of Pgi allele should increase with decrease in temperature, the study established that the frequency of Pgi allele decrease with decrease in temperature. This work is important because it provides a basis for more research on how variations in temperature affect beetle populations. The study findings can be used to guide researchers who are interested in seeking ways of protecting endangered beetle populations in different climatic conditions.

This paper is about the "Global epistasis makes adaptation predictable despite sequence-level stochasticity" and the link for this study is given below:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314286/

can you please help me these questions because i'm having a hard time understanding the paper:

Answer the following questions:

1) What is the hypothesis of the paper?

2) Is this a correlative or causative study?

3) How do the authors support their hypothesis?

4) Do you believe the author’s data presented in the paper (and any supplements) support their hypothesis. If not, why not?

5) Are there other experiments or experimental modification that should have been performed by the researchers?

6) Does the discussion carefully lay out an argument that supports the hypothesis? If not, what do you believe was missing?

7) Does the statistical analysis strengthen or weaken the conclusions of the paper.

8) What are the conclusions of the paper? Do you agree with the conclusions?

9) Does the author overstate their findings or perhaps not enough?

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Biology 460,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in