Fire Escarpment And Forest Succession Question example essay topic

Objective: The purpose of going to Brown County was to practice observation skills by studying species in their environments. We tested and / or observed four things: forest succession after a fire, plant growth and light intensity, shore structure and animal life, and emergent properties. Part I: The Fire Escarpment and Forest Succession Question: What is the effect of deer overpopulation on succession in the fire escarpment? Background: Forest succession, occurring in two parts, is the rebuilding after a destructive event, such as a fire. During Primary Succession, plants begin to grow, building the way for more complex organisms.

Secondary Succession is when more species, including animals, begin to enter and live in the area. Forest succession allows the habitat to begin a new cycle of interactions and life. Eventually, a climax community will be reached, where the habitat is completely restored. Null Hypothesis: The thorn length will be shorter in the surrounding area, or there will be no difference. Independent Variable: Succession Area (Fenced or Surrounding Area) Dependent Variable: Thorn Length Conclusion: The null hypothesis was rejected, and the Chi Square showed a significant difference. The underdeveloped fenced area had a lower average thorn length than the surrounding area.

This is probably because the plants were still in the process of growing in the fenced area. The surrounding area had not been destroyed, so the plants were mature. Part II: Plant Growth and Photosynthesis Question: How does the amount of light affect the height of ground vegetation in the fire escarpment? Background: Photosynthesis is a chemical process by which plants convert the sun's electrons into energy. Then, that energy is used to produce glucose, the fuel for metabolism. Primary productivity is the amount of light energy converted to chemical energy by autotrophs of an ecosystem during any given time period, or how much photosynthesis is happening.

Herbivores and omnivores depend on plants for food, energy, and life. Plants cannot live without the process of photosynthesis, which means that the food chain would not be possible and all animals would eventually become extinct. Null Hypothesis: Plants will be shorter when exposed to high amounts of light, or there will be no difference. Independent Variable: Light Intensity Dependent Variable: Plant Height Conclusion: The null hypothesis was rejected, and the Chi Square showed a significant difference. Plants averaged a higher height when exposed to greater amounts of light, such as in the open fire escarpment. The plants measured less tall when exposed to less light in the covered forest.

Our results make sense, because more light causes plants to thrive and grow. Part : Ogle Lake and Macroinvertebrates Question: How does shore structure affect the number and type of macroinvertebrates present in Ogle Lake? Background: "Macro" means "big", and "invertebrate" means "lacking a backbone"; therefore, macroinvertebrates are organisms lacking a backbone, which can be viewed without a microscope. We gathered them with nets from the benthic zone, or bottom of the lake. Macroinvertebrates provide food for other species, and they aid in measuring the health of a water habitat. Some help filter the water by eating the detritus, or dead organic material.

A food web evidences how all life is interdependent and every organism has a role. The food web begins with Detritivores and Primary Producers, which are eaten by primary consumers. Then, secondary and primary consumers are eaten by tertiary and secondary consumers. If one organism is over or under-populated, contracts a disease, or is negatively affected by something, the whole web will become disturbed. Null Hypothesis: There will be a greater number of macroinvertebrates found in the dammed shore structure, or there will be no difference. Independent Variable: Type of Shore (Inland or Dammed) Dependent Variable: # of Macroinvertebrates Conclusion: The null hypothesis was accepted, because the Chi Square showed no significant difference between the macroinvertebrates found in the dammed and inland shores.

However, there were 42 more macroinvertebrates found in the inland shore than in the dammed shore. This is probably because organisms tend to stay in the calm waters where more food is available.