Yellowstone Wolves

It was interesting to hear of the effect wolves hold on the ecosystem in Yellowstone National Park. I didn't know they were such a major species. In the video, a scientist showed us a graphic of the trophic level pyramid. Wolves are on top, and mainly prey on elk, who are in the middle. An elk’s diet consists of plant life in the park, which is located at the bottom of the pyramid, as the basis for all life. At one point, the wolf population was almost loss, and the elk population began to flourish. Because the elk population increased, the plant life was over eaten, and there wasn't enough food to go around. The elk killed a lot of shrubbery around the park. This all took place because of the loss of many wolves.  

This is where the reintroduction took place. Canadian wolves were placed into the park to restore the wolf population. Yes, this reintroduction did help to control the elk population, and helped to bring back much plant life. However, the return of wolves had an effect on something else that was not in the tropic level pyramid: coyotes. This is where intraspecific competition comes in. This is competition between species, such as the wolf and the coyote. Both species fought for the same food, but in different ways. Coyotes are scavengers, and would eat already dead elk. Wolves would seek out and kill the elk themselves, not leaving anything left to scavenge, thus, ridding the park of a big food source for coyotes. Also, the wolves saw any other dog as a threat, and if a coyote crossed its path, the coyote was surely dead. The park saw a decline in coyote population after the reintroduction of wolves.

Nomadic Lass - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nomadic_lass/5862614354/

Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center - West Yellowstone, Montana Alpha female of the High Country Wolves

I agree with the idea of reintroduction. The fluctuation of the wolf population was a natural one that would've continued had humans not stepped in. It was for the betterment of plant life in the park, and if they hadn't brought in the Canadian wolves, the park surely would've looked desolate. There was another introduction discussed in the video: the Florida panther. The state’s cat was on the decline, and when brought back, many people were upset due to the panthers wandering close to their homes. I, however, agree with the act of reintroduction in this instance as well. Panthers are a necessary element in the Florida forest ecosystem. They, as mentioned in the video, are the prime predator of the wild hog, who also inhabit the forests in that states. The wild hogs are a menace, that became even more so when the cats died out. Progress is already being seen in the decline of the wild hog population, as a result of the panther reintroduction.

As for wolves in our back yard (the U.P.), they are truly a natural part of the ecosystem, and belong here. I am glad that they are protected. On the other hand, I believe their population can fluctuate just as much as any other, and should be controlled. I think a hunting season is justified, but not for reasons such as “violent, menacing wolves”, but because more wolves means less deer, or moose. Too many wolves would throw off other populations of necessary species.

Wildlife is such a beautiful, majestic thing. I feel strongly that we are obligated to help it survive, and not only that, but flourish. It is our duty to protect the species that can’t do such for themselves (i.e. plant life in Yellowstone), and control species at risk of over or under population. We should feel honored to defend the gift that nature is.  

EJ

A Walk in the Bog

I'm so unbelievably thankful to live in the pristine place that I do, and here's why- the peace and quiet of nature is only five minutes from home. For one class session, we met at one of these beautiful locations that I'm so blessed to be near- the Presque Isle Bog, a small area between the mainland of Marquette, and Presque Isle Island.

A bog can form two ways; one by terrestrialization, and the other by paludification. Terrestrialization takes place when sediments and peat (dead plant material) build up in a small pond or lake. When enough sediment builds up, plants are able to take root. When a bog forms by paludification, the ground becomes over saturated over an extended period of time by water. This can happen because of beaver dams, or man made construction. Bogs are considerably different than other habitats. Soil in a bog is much more acidic, but low in nutrients. It takes a strong plant to grow there. You'll usually find that trees growing there are Tamaracks, Speckled Alder, or Birches. Plants grow slowly, and decay even slower. Bogs have a way of preserving things.

One thing I was particularly fascinated by was the pitcher plants, a carnivorous plant. It uses a liquid to attract insects which then fall inside the plant, and can't climb back out the slippery surface. The flowers don't always blossom, but there were plentiful flowers when we were there, which means it has been the perfect environment for them. I also liked learning about the horsetails that we found. They are among the oldest terrestrial plants, and resemble bamboo. Since they have a tough quality about them, Indians wove them and used them as pot scrubbers. It's crazy that these plants, plants that were around during the time of dinosaurs, are still found in bogs today. I think that represents how great of an environment a bog provides.

EJ

What's Alive?

Sometimes it's fun to get out of the classroom, and do something to keep students active. That's exactly what our Life Science class did a few days ago. One early, warm morning, we ventured into the courtyard with one task: to gather as many living things as possible. But what is living? I mentioned in my previous post, something is living if it grows, can reproduce, has a balanced internal environment, can respond to stimuli, and uses energy. We picked weeds, a flower, a pine cone, some berries, and even managed to get an ant, and put them all in a plastic bag. Back inside, we went through the contents of our bag, and labeled each item as living now, was living, dead, or never alive. We were also given objects from the classroom to label, which included popcorn kernels, a straw, cotton balls, etc. Once we had a consensus of what each object was, we dampened a paper towel, placed everything in it, and put the entire setup into the plastic bag. We gave the bag a nice puff of air, and closed it. We were to see if anything had grown the following week.

While some things did grow, others made no progress, and others died. The popcorn kernels sprouted into the cotton balls. Some beans that were thrown into the mixture had sprouted. We had guessed that both those items were still alive with potential to grow, and we were correct. The ant, however, hadn't had a source of food, and died. This activity showed us that life does abide by those 5 things I listed, but sometimes there are exceptions. We can create that environment life needs (the baggy), and though something may seem like it isn't currently alive (ie, not growing), it just might not have responded to necessary stimuli yet.

Seed Revival

5 things define life as we know it on earth:
1. Growth
2. Reproduction
3. Homeostasis (balance of internal environment)
4. Sense and respond to stimuli
5. Obtain and use energy 

Considering these stipulations, if a 2000 year old wheat seed in Egypt was taken, planted, and grew, was it alive or dead when buried in the pyramid? I have to say that it was alive. Though it did not grow while in the pyramid, it had the potential to grow. The seed itself was a gamete used in the reproduction of wheat, and therefore was alive at one point, and had its own maintained internal environment. When taken from the pyramid and planted, the seed grew, which means it still held the ability to respond to external stimuli. This means that, yes, the seed was still alive after 2000 years. This is no surprise to me. It is not uncommon for us to store and freeze our own human gametes in order for them to grow in the future. These eggs grow just as well as any other live egg currently in a body. If human "seeds" can respond to stimuli a mere 10 years in the future, a hardy wheat seed can most definitely survive, even thrive, after 2000 years. 

The Inquiry Wheel

In my previous post, I touched lightly on the subject of inquiry. When carrying out an experiment, there is no traditional scientific method, as we all learned as elementary students. When you are truly delving into science, it is never perfect. You will have to try and try again to carry out your experiment. You'll have to back track and ask more questions until you come up with the right answers. The ideal way to describe this circular process is through the inquiry wheel: 

This will cover all of your bases, where as the scientific method is the simple "ask question, research, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, analyze data, form conclusion". The inquiry wheel gives you more wiggle room, and allows you to retrace your steps. If you end up proving your hypothesis wrong, you can immediately ask why, reform your hypothesis, and continue with your experiment. With the scientific method, you're either right or wrong. This will be very helpful when my group and I begin to carry out our semester experiment. We plan on investigating the effects of deer scat in soil, and whether or not it helps plants grow compared to store bought fertilized soil. Though it can't be tested, we were also curious if using deer scat as fertilizer would also work as a repellent for keeping deer out of your garden. We surely won't limit ourselves to one try. The inquiry wheel will encourage us to keep at our research and testing, until we find an answer to our question.

EJ

The Mystery Within

During class, we were assigned to deduce what objects were clanking around inside an old film container. First, though, we had to ask many questions about the container and the potential objects inside. For example, how heavy is the container? What are the objects made of? Etc. Once we had obtained enough questions, we began our experiment. We were given an identical container, and a handful of objects that could be in the original. Our group decided to use a scale, though if we'd really wanted, we could've used another process (we brainstormed a process of identifying the objects inside, and letting the container float in a beaker of water to judge how much it sank or floated). We started by weighing the whole original container, and recording. Then, we shook it to see what sort of sound it made. By the sound of the shaking, we guessed which objects might be in the container.We put the empty container on the scale, and added each item, one by one, and watched the weight rise. We added a magnet, a piece of plastic, and a small nail. With the objects we guessed, the weight was only .1 ounce away from the controlled container. We were positive the original contained a magnet, because when we held the two containers together, they stuck. We then emptied the original, finding a magnet, and a small white piece of plastic. It lacked the tiny nail. In the end, we found that our .1 discrepancy was because our magnet weighed slightly less than the original. We hadn't actually needed the nail if we had known that.

Through this process, I learned that science has a great deal of guessing and checking. I also learned that there is a possibility of  inconsistency with results, and that isn't always in your control. You just have to make do with what you're given. This activity helped to introduce the idea of inquiry, which is neither short or easy. Sometimes, when experimenting, you'll have to go full circle. You'll ask questions, formulate hypotheses, and create experiments until you finally get an answer- just like we did with weighing and re-weighing our container.

EJ

Dangers of DHMO

DHMO is an odorless, colorless liquid that has been known to be deteriorating to property, and has even caused death. There is even research going on to find whether or not it can be found in tumors or cancer cells. Should public use of DHMO be banned?

This was only a snippet of information presented to me in the form a video during class. We were asked to pick one option: to ban it, or not. With that being the only information given, it was surprisingly hard to make a choice. We voted with our iClickers, so we were able to see the results forming on the screen in the classroom.The percentage of "Yes" continued to rise, while "No" only stayed at one percent. Due to the pressure of our peers, we all proceeded to pick yes, with the exception of one person. I, at this point, knew something was up. This had to be a trick question. But what was the trick?

Immediately after voting yes, I knew I should've said no. We weren't given enough information to make a good decision. I voted yes because that was what everyone else was doing. My gut feeling was soon proved correct. What is DHMO, you ask? None other than dihydrogen monoxide. Two hydrogens, and one oxygen, also known as water, and we should not go around banning water. We need water; we are made up of 75% water. We're often way too quick at answering questions, and quite frequently without substantial information to support our answer. Through this activity, I learned that I shouldn't let the decisions of others affect mine, and also that I should answer more cautiously when not given the right amount of information. That is a two way street, however. I will now be more aware of information I'm giving my future students, so that they can confidently answer questions from the knowledge they retain.