DATA TABLE: ECOLOGY

LESSON 1
Lesson 1:
Step 1
Plant A Plant B
Prediction: starting population 5000 5000
Prediction: ending population 7500 2500
Starting population 6114 3427
Ending population 10000 0
Lesson 1:
Step 2
Plant A Plant B Herbivore A
Prediction: starting population 6000 4000 1000
Prediction: ending population 3000 5000 2000
Starting population 5256 3700 1312
Ending population 3335 4998 2055
Responses to questions
Step 1
1. This model assumes that plant A is more dominant than plant B. In terms of the general terrain it seems as
though this model assumes plant A to be something similar to grass !hile plant B loo"s li"e a more
elaborate t#pe of flora$ there are onl# enough nutrients to support the more dominant plant.
%. I found plant A to be more dominant. This might be due to natural e&ternal conditions and the plants' abilities
to adapt to adverse effects.
Step %
1. Adding the herbivore does establish a more e(ual field. Plant B is no! the dominant plant. This might be
because the herbivore controls plant A through consumption allo!ing plant B to populate more.
%. If the simulation included decomposers the soil !ould regain nutrients !hich !ould result in a greater
population increase in plants A and B and the herbivore. E(uilibrium ho!ever !ould still be maintained.
). Producer population numbers !ith the presence of an herbivore !ere in e(uilibrium rather than one plant
completel# eradicating the other plant through domination in the primar# coloni*er model.
DATA TABLE: ECOLOGY
LESSON 2
Lesson 2:
Step 1
+, or -
Plant A Herbivore A .mnivore A Top Predator
Prediction
Simulation 1
Simulation %
Lesson 2:
Step 2
+, or -
Plant
A
Plant
B
Plant
/
Herbivore
A
Herbivore
B
Herbivore
/
.mnivore
A
.mnivore
B
Top
Predator
Prediction , ,
Simulation 1 , , ,
Simulation % , , ,
0odifications
made

Responses to questions
Step 1
1. 0# prediction !as not correct. I assumed that the top predator !ould gro! because there !as nothing
pre#ing on them unli"e the plant herbivore and omnivore. Instead there !ere difference bet!een m#
prediction and the simulation. Herbivore A and omnivore A increased !hile the top predator decreased.
%. If the producers !ere to die out the imaginar# ecos#stem !ould cease to e&ist.
). Herbivore A and omnivore A increased in number. A lo! number of predators and a high number of
producers could account for this increase. Plant A and top predator decreased in number. Plant A decreased
due to the increase in herbivores and omnivores. 1ue to the increase in omnivores perhaps that is !h# the
top predator decreased.
2. Plants !ould benefit the most from the presence of decomposers.
Step %
1. 0# predictions !ere for the most part correct !ith t!o e&ceptions. I arrived at m# predictions b# ta"ing into
account the food chain and numbers. I predicted increase in plant A decrease in plant B decrease in plant
/ decrease in herbivore A increase in herbivore B decrease in herbivore / d#ing out of omnivore A d#ing
out of omnivore B and increase in top predator. The simulation ho!ever sho!ed a d#ing out of plant / and
a decrease in herbivore B.
%. I !as able to some!hat modif# the parameters so that each species survived. I decided on !hat
modifications to ma"e loo"ing at difference in numbers pre# versus predator and trial and error.
). Energ# flo!s from the bottom to the top of the food chain. Eating an organism results in energ# transfer b#
the gaining of nutrients and vitamins.