Journal #2

1. Give a detailed qualitative analysis in narrative format (paragraphs) of changes that have occurred in your column since the initial construction. LOOK AT PRIOR ENTRY TO REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. If you have photos, be sure to look at them and compare. Write to give the reader a mental PICTURE of what’s going on.
   
   There had been some changes that occurred since the construction of the EcoFlasks. The water in both groups seem to be clearer than from the time of the first journal. The control group still had the algae cover its walls as opposed to the experimental group, which did not contain any. The snails (found living after the plants were placed) seemed to be thriving. The Elodea and the duckweed plants were rooted and healthy for the most part, but some of them looked like they were dying.



2. Which new organisms are you adding (sci. names)? Why and how did you decide on the numbers? Explain your reasoning using some of the terms/ideas you used in your research proposal. How will your efforts lead to homeostasis in the column?
   
   We added 3 adult brine shrimp (Anostraca, Artemia), 2 pond snails (Gastropoda, Austropeplea), 8 green hydras (Hydrozoa, Hydra), and 13 water fleas (Cladocera, Daphnia) in each flasks. Originally, we would have placed orb snails instead of pond snails, but they were the only choice of snails that arrived. Also, we decided to put the brine shrimp into the flasks, though we decided not to put the seed shrimp (we couldn't find them on the catalogue). We decided that there should be less predators than the prey to balance out the population since some will be eaten by others. These efforts will lead to homeostasis in the EcoFlasks by letting the some of the smaller organisms reproduce before getting eaten or dying.



3. Are there any abiotic additions or subtractions being performed today? Why or why not?
   
   No abiotic changes were made during the addition of the new organisms. No rocks or soil were added. A small amount of water went into the flasks when the new organisms were added and a small sample was taken out when tests were performed.



4. Identify at least one new, interesting, or unexpected development in your columns. Why do you think this occurred? How will this affect the balance in your column in the future?
   
   Some of the duckweed from our experimental group died. This has occurred perhaps because of the competition with other plants or the lack of resources in the EcoFlasks. This will affect the balance by lowering the oxygen level produced from photosynthesis. This may lead to other producers thriving in the flasks or the consumers to die because of the imbalance in the food chain.



5. What were the results of your pH and DO tests? What do these results mean and how will you respond? Identify how the readings compared with acceptable ranges for aquatic ecosystems. Will you continue to run these two tests, or do you want to try some new ones next time. Why or why not? Explain your reasoning.
   
   --> For each test, make sure that there is a separate post reserved in your blog with a data table to record the data with date. This way, you can track the readings easily over time.
   
   Possible Tests: pH, total hardness, dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates
   
   The control group had a pH level of 8.59 and a dissolved oxygen level of 5.7 mg/L. The experimental group had a pH level of 9.09 and a dissolved oxygen level of 6.5 mg/L. The results of the dissolved oxygen tests were too low for a healthy ecosystem, because the acceptable range for dissolved oxygen level in freshwater environments is between 9.1 mg/L and 11.3 mg/L. This may mean that the plants are dying and not producing enough oxygen to sustain the ecosystem. The pH levels of the flasks were in the acceptable range for pH, which is between 6.5 pH and 9.5 pH. According to the results, we would have to raise the level of dissolved oxygen within the flasks without affecting the pH levels. We should continue these tests because the dissoved oxygen test and the pH test seem to be the closest representation of the health of the ecosystems.



6. Read the excerpt printed below. Pick two of the characteristics that make a "“good scientist" and explain in detail how you and your group are doing these things in your ecocolumn work.
   
   Taken from: http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01233.htm
   
   In response to a question on "What makes a good scientist?"”, Ric Rupnik wrote the following:
   
   I do not have an author to quote with a profound answer
   to your question. I will make a few comments as to
   what I have personally experienced in those I feel
   fall into the "good" scientist category:
   
   Someone who:
   
   1. has a passion for learning
   2. has an open mind and is not disabled by boundaries of thought
   3. can look at situations from many angles
   4. is not frustrated in finding one or several plausible solutions regardless of the time involved,
   and who can use failure to improve future approaches to problem solving
   5. uses learned knowledge and theories but is not fully bound by them in facing new situations , i.e.
   can think outside the box
   6. can acknowledge input / feelings from others as one source of information but not be overly swayed by that input
   7. has at their core a desire to improve the human condition without adversely affecting the environment
   or other living things
   8. is honest in the collection and analysis of data whether they support his (her) own theories or not
   9. communicates clearly their findings with honesty as a primary consideration, leaving funding and
   politics for others to consider
   
   I am sure there are other good qualities, some
   indication of aptitude or intelligence as well as
   working with others without ego which could increase
   their effectiveness, but lacking these would not make
   them ineffective as a scientist.
   
   Ric Rupnik, Scientist
   Argonne National Laboratory (University of Chicago)
   
   I think that a person who fall into the categories 2 and 5 would make a good scientists. Questions are solved in science by using the scientific method, but it's supposed to come up with new ideas. When our group worked on our EcoFlasks, the results from the tests were not always favorable. However, we didn't conclude that the EcoFlasks were failing. We had to find out which part about the flasks were faulty and make new changes to the procedure.