wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/intelligentwr/nursingassignmentcrackers/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Multiple choice (2 pt) 1- 2. Chromis cyanea is a coral reef fish. Hixon and Carr (1997) hypothesized that predation on recently-settled Chromis was a key factor regulating the population density of Chromis. They tested their hypothesis by allowing predators to access some reefs (A) and excluding them from others (D). The plots show the per-capita mortality of Chromis versus the number of settlers at the start of the experiment. 1. Which plot(s) show evidence of density-dependent mortality? Circle one answer. Plot A Plot D Both Neither 2. Which option is the most reasonable interpretation of these plots? A. Predation is density-dependent in a way that regulates the Chromis population. B. Predation is density-dependent in a way that works against regulating the Chromis population. C. Predation isn\u2019t density-dependent. Some other factor must be regulating the Chromis population. D. Predation isn\u2019t density-dependent. No factor appears to be regulating the Chromis population. 3. On the plot below, the logistic model predicts per-capita birth rates to fall along the solid line. The points show your actual data for a songbird. What ecological factor could account for the difference between your data and the logistic model\u2019s prediction? (a) lack of energy resources at low density (b) the bird is a cooperative breeder, so it has low reproductive success at low density (c) lack of nesting sites limits reproduction at high density 4. In which real situation would an exponential model be a better choice for predicting population growth than the logistic model? A. A deer population that is declining because its density is much higher than its resources can support. B. A bacteria population that has already covered most of the growth medium in its petri dish. C A population of Black-footed Ferrets that has been newly founded in favorable habitat. 5. I conducted a batch mark-recapture study of frogs living along 50m of stream. I used the Lincoln-Peterson model to estimate the population size at 80 frogs. I later find out that the actual abundance during the sample period (120 frogs) was significantly higher than my estimate. Abundance estimates can be biased if the procedure violated one or more assumptions of the method. Which biological explanation would be consistent with these data (estimate < actual) ? (a) Several marked frogs died between the first and second visits. (b) Several new unmarked frogs immigrated into of the site between the first and second visit. (c) Frogs marked in the first visit were more likely to be recaught in the second visit than others. 6. Batch mark-recapture and depletion are the primary methods to estimate population size that we considered. They share several assumptions. Which assumption is only true for one of the two? A. All individuals have an equal probability of capture at the start of the study. B. Each attempt at capturing animals used the same level of effort. C. No immigration or deaths during the sample. 7. All things being equal, a life history with lots of reproduction early in life should always be favored. Yet many animals wait decades to reproduce. That means all things AREN\u2019T equal. In which situation would selection favor later reproduction? A. Environments in which juveniles experience intense resource competition. B. Environments with plentiful resources, and selection favoring rapid growth. C. Environments with little predation on juveniles, and selection favoring low parental care. 8. The Lotka-Volterra competition predicts that, when two competitors share a single resource, one will drive the other to extinction most of the time. Yet we see many many examples of competitors coexisting in nature. Suppose grasshopper B. tough is competitively dominant to another grasshopper B. wimpy. Its populations can grow when resources are too low for B. wimpy to maintain its population. Which additional detail would promote coexistence of these two species? a. The resident bird predator preferentially feeds on B. tough. b. B. tough is an intraguild predator\u2014it eats the eggs of B. wimpy. c. B. wimpy individuals are larger than B. tough individuals. 9- 10. The tables and figures below are all from Crowder et al. (1994). 9. As precisely as you can, explain what the two numbers in the box in Table 2 mean. What information from Table 1 accounts for those values? 10. Why do hatchlings have such low reproductive value (Table 3) even though they have all their reproduction ahead of them? (a) They represent a large portion of the population. (b) They are only in that stage for one year. (c) They are likely to die before reaching reproductive age. 11. Source-sink models add a bit of complexity to classic metapopulation models. What complexity do they add? A. Allow the size of patches to vary. B. Allow the distance between patches to vary. C. Allow the rate of population growth within a patch to vary. 12. A metapopulation of frogs lives in a network of patches of wetlands. The plot shows the change in the fraction of occupied patches over time. From your understanding of metapopulations, which event would be most likely to cause the shift in the pre-1990 vs. post-1990 data? A. New species introduced in 1990 that provides an additional food source for the frogs. B. Increased rainfall each year since 1990, increasing the size of each wetland. C. New road built through the middle of the network in 1990, decreasing the connectivity of the patches. 13. Cleaner shrimp sometimes \u201ccheat\u201d, eating bits of host flesh rather than parasites. In which situation would selection favor \u201ccheating\u201d more often? A. Alternative foods for cleaner shrimp are abundant. B. Hosts that visit are agile predators. C. Hosts have few parasites on them. 14. It is rare for a predator to drive its prey to extinction in mainland areas. Which of the following is most important for the coexistence of predator and prey in most places? (a) Prey can survive in some habitats that predators cannot access. (b) Most predators are specialists. (c) Prey populations have very high birth rates, leading to a high rmax. 15. In which direction (A, B, or C) would you expect this predator-prey system to move next? 16. The plot below has isoclines for two competitors, Species 1 (solid line) and Species 2 (dashed line). Suppose we manipulate the populations so that N1 = 15 and N2=20. Use arrows to indicate how you expect the population sizes to change over time. Based on this, what do you expect at equilibrium? (circle one) STABLE COEXISTENCE UNSTABLE COEXISTENCE ONE SPECIES EXTINCT 17. Same interaction and plot as #14, what type of competition is stronger in this interaction? INTERSPECIFIC INTRASPECIFIC NEITHER Short answer (6 pt unless noted) 18. (4 pts) Hatcher et al. (2012) proposed that parasites are essential components of ecosystems. Ticks are common parasites in wild areas, affecting many species of conservation concern. Give one argument why Hatcher et al.(2012) would say eliminating ticks from Shenandoah National Park would be a bad idea. 19. Gilg et al. (2003) asserted that lemming populations were regulated by density-dependent predation from stoats, and averaged about 250 individuals at this site. (Don\u2019t worry about the cycles here.) a. On the plot, add per-capita birth (b) and death (d) rates that would be consistent with that result. b. Schmidt et al. (2012) found that changes in climate, a density-independent factor, caused the lemming populations at this site to decline to about 50 individuals. Assuming the decline was due to a change in birth rates, add a dashed line for a new per-capita birth rate that would be consistent with the decline. 20. The Central Stoneroller population of Hazel Run has grown rapidly in the time our class has monitored it. The number caught in the Upper site by electrofishing each year is shown below. Upper Electro 0 2 5 10 29 320 68 Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Based on these data, and your knowledge of exponential and logistic growth models, how many Stonerollers do you think we\u2019ll catch next year? (circle one) 75 118 138 250 Explain the reasoning for your choice above. (Good justifications exist for each option.) 21. A reserve manager says they will focus on protecting just the highest quality habitat for native species, so they will no longer manage properties that can\u2019t support themselves. You disagree. Based on your knowledge of sourcesink models, what value might those properties (sink habitats) have for preserving native species? 22. Oxpecker birds roam over the bodies of water buffaloes, removing ticks and other parasites and eating them. Some research indicates that, in addition to pulling ticks, oxpeckers also use their bills to open new wounds in the buffaloes and drink blood from them. (a) Design an experiment that would strongly test whether this is a mutualist interaction. Be sure to name the dependent variable(s) and control groups (if any). (b) Draw a plot\/ table of data that would support mutualism. Remember to label your axes\/ columns. 23. (2 pt) What idea\/ skill from this section of the course will you remember\/ use five years from now? Equations galore! Lincoln-Peterson T = (S * F) \/ R Leslie depletion \ud835\udc5f =\ud835\udc4f\u2212\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc41\ud835\udc61 = \ud835\udc410 \ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc41 = \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc41 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc41 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc41 = \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc41 (1 \u2212 \ud835\udc3e ) \ud835\udc41\ud835\udc61+1 = \ud835\udf06\ud835\udc41\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc5f = ln \ud835\udf06 and \ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc5f = \ud835\udf06 \ud835\udc450 = \u2211 \ud835\udc59(\ud835\udc65)\ud835\udc4f(\ud835\udc65) \ud835\udc3a= \u2211 \ud835\udc65 \ud835\udc59(\ud835\udc65)\ud835\udc4f(\ud835\udc65) \ud835\udc450 \ud835\udc63(\ud835\udc65) = # \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc54 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc54\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc65 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f # \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc54\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc65 \ud835\udc450 \u2248 \ud835\udf06\ud835\udc3a \ud835\udc5f\u2248 \ud835\udc43\ud835\udc56 = ln \ud835\udc450 \ud835\udc3a \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56 \ud835\udc59(\ud835\udc56\u22121) \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc56 = \ud835\udc43\ud835\udc56 \u00d7 \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc56 BIOL 322\/ 472 Populations in space Not this kind of space Dispersal ability High One continuous population Mixing all alike Isolated all alike Low Low Expect \u201csmart\u201d mixing Isolated heterogeneous populations Habitat heterogeneity High Animals move Sutherland et al. 2013 Movement terminology \uf097 Local movement vs. dispersal vs. migration Dispersal Home ranges Migration has return route Beyond mark-recapture \uf097 Kays et al. 2015: New tags, new insights on movement ecology Beyond mark-recapture \uf097 Kays et al. 2015: New tags, new insights on movement ecology Why migrate? Monarch movement in the US Why migrate? \uf097 Altizer et al. 2011: Migration has a big impact on potential for disease to spread \uf0a1 + Spread disease to new popns \uf0a1 – Migratory culling Why migrate? Altizer et al. 2011 Scaling up movement Sutherland et al. 2013 Sutherland et al. 2013 \uf097 Three ideas: \uf0a1 Behavioral minimalism \uf0a1 Perceptual range \uf0a1 Conspecific attraction Behavioral minimalism \uf097 Better to model movement with little or no direction than to impose incorrect biases Random walks Correlated random walks Dispersal with limited info Perceptual range \uf097 Distance at which an organism can detect a landscape element of interest \uf097 Standard of plausibility: Determine whether an animal\u2019s perceptual range based on what seems reasonable Conspecific attraction \uf097 Presence of conspecifics may indicate good habitat Safety Mating opportunities Food Individuals \u2192 Populations Dispersal among patches determines how the population \u201cbehaves\u201d Synchronized patches if well-connected by dispersal Independent if not at all Spatially structured models \uf097 Spatially implicit: Include some measure of movement within the population, but not true (x,y) coordinates \uf097 Spatially explicit: Assign (x,y) coordinates to patches and individuals Classic metapopulations \uf097 Equilibrium depends on i and e (here i > e) Extinction with no rescue effect, equilibrium around f = 0.6 Rate Colonization Extinction with rescue effect, equilibrium with all patches occupied 0.0 Fraction occupied (f) 1.0 colonization extinction With rescue df\/dt = i f (1-f) \u2013 e f (1-f) Without df\/dt = i f (1-f) \u2013 e f Distribution of Glanville Fritillary metapopulation \u201cnetwork\u201d From: Hanski, I. A., and M. E. Gilpin. 1996. Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press Metapopulations Patch map Occupied patches in blue Occupancy gradient Simulation results Empty patches in red Minimum Viable Metapopulation Each patch has a 70% chance of going extinct each year. Each patch acts independently of the others. Probability that all three patches go extinct in one year? (probability of one patch going extinct)# patches (0.7)3 = 0.343 Rule of thumb from classic metapopulation models: At least 10-15 well connected patches are required for long-term persistence. Source- sink \uf097 Pulliam (1988): Spatially implicit model that allowed patch quality to vary \uf0a1 Source: per-capita birth rate > death rate, net exporter of emigrants \uf0a1 Sink: per-capita death rate > birth rate, requires immigration to persist Sources vs. Sinks r>0 \u03bb, R0 > 1 SOURCE (high quality habitat) dispersal r<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n| Excellent<\/strong><\/td>\n | Good<\/strong><\/td>\n | Fair<\/strong><\/td>\n | Poor<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n | Main Postinga<\/strong><\/td>\n | 45\u00a0(45%)\u00a0– 50\u00a0(50%)<\/p>\n | Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three current, credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n 40\u00a0(40%)\u00a0– 44\u00a0(44%)<\/p>\n | Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n 35\u00a0(35%)\u00a0– 39\u00a0(39%)<\/p>\n | Responds to some of the discussion question(s).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Post is cited with two credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains some APA formatting errors.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 34\u00a0(34%)<\/p>\n | Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains only one or no credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Not written clearly or concisely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Main Post: Timeliness<\/strong><\/td>\n | 10\u00a0(10%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n | Posts main post by day 3.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n | Does not post by day 3.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n First Response<\/strong><\/td>\n | 17\u00a0(17%)\u00a0– 18\u00a0(18%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 15\u00a0(15%)\u00a0– 16\u00a0(16%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 13\u00a0(13%)\u00a0– 14\u00a0(14%)<\/p>\n | Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 12\u00a0(12%)<\/p>\n | Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Second Response<\/strong><\/td>\n | 16\u00a0(16%)\u00a0– 17\u00a0(17%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 14\u00a0(14%)\u00a0– 15\u00a0(15%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 12\u00a0(12%)\u00a0– 13\u00a0(13%)<\/p>\n | Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 11\u00a0(11%)<\/p>\n | Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Participation<\/strong><\/td>\n | 5\u00a0(5%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(5%)<\/p>\n | Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n | Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Total Points: 100<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chromis Cyanea Biology Worksheet Multiple choice (2 pt) 1- 2. Chromis cyanea is a coral reef fish. Hixon and Carr (1997) hypothesized that predation on recently-settled Chromis was a key factor regulating the population density of Chromis. They tested their hypothesis by allowing predators to access some reefs (A) and excluding them from others (D). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"yoast_head":"\n |