Scribd
Upload
70 views2 pages

Jan 2003 W2

1. The document summarizes an experiment that investigated the effect of two concentrations of IAA plant hormone (1μg dm–3 and 10μg dm–3) on the growth of plant sections. It found that sections treated with the higher concentration showed greater increases in length, with mean increases of 8.2 mm (54.7% increase) for the lower concentration and 10.9 mm (72.7% increase) for the higher concentration. Statistical analysis rejected the null hypothesis, showing the differences in length increases between the concentrations were significant. 2. The document also describes the methodology for a study investigating population sizes of froghoppers in different woodland zones. The methodology controls for confounding variables,

Uploaded by

api-3726022
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views2 pages

Jan 2003 W2

1. The document summarizes an experiment that investigated the effect of two concentrations of IAA plant hormone (1μg dm–3 and 10μg dm–3) on the growth of plant sections. It found that sections treated with the higher concentration showed greater increases in length, with mean increases of 8.2 mm (54.7% increase) for the lower concentration and 10.9 mm (72.7% increase) for the higher concentration. Statistical analysis rejected the null hypothesis, showing the differences in length increases between the concentrations were significant. 2. The document also describes the methodology for a study investigating population sizes of froghoppers in different woodland zones. The methodology controls for confounding variables,

Uploaded by

api-3726022
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1.

(a)

Sections in 1g dm–3 IAA Sections in 10g dm –3 IAA


Increases in length Increases in length
Final length / mm / mm % Final length / mm / mm %
22 7 46.7 25 10 66.7

25 10 66.7 28 13 86.7

24 9 60.0 26 11 73.3

23 8 53.3 27 12 80.0

22 7 46.7 25 10 66.7

20 5 33.3 26 11 73.3

25 10 66.7 29 14 93.3

24 9 60.0 24 9 60.0

23 8 53.3 26 11 73.3

24 9 60.0 23 8 53.3

Mean increase 8.2 54.7 Mean increase 10.9 72.7

Neat table correctly formatted ; [shaded columns optional]


Correct rows and columns with labels and units ;
Increases in length correct ;
All means correct ; 4
(b) Correctly orientated and labelled axes ;
{Bar / histogram} format AND comparative data ;
Data plotted correctly accept simple bar chart of
means or class sizes if appropriate ; 3
(c) There is no difference in increase in lengths between the two concentrations ; 1
(d) Reject the null hypothesis / there is a difference in the lengths of sections in the two
concentrations ;
Calculated t value is greater than the tabulated value ;
At the 5% confidence limit / greater than 2.10 ; 3
[11]

W2 Jan 2003 MS 1
2. (a) 1. {Selection / standardisation} of {coppiced / non coppiced} e.g. same tree
species OR minimum of two abiotic factors ;
2. Investigate zones at same {time of day / season} / in same weather
conditions ;
3. {Suitable sized / identical} area(s) within zones in {m2 / reference to
standard quadrat size} ;
4. Method of selection of sampling sites described e.g. by use of a random
numbers table ;
5. Suitable, named method of collection, e.g. pooter / sweep net / beating tray
/ pitfall trap ;
6. Standardisation of collecting method e.g. standard sweep / time for
beating etc ;
7. Number of samples within each zone (at least 10) ;
8. Sensible method of preventing escape ;
9. Method of identification e.g. use of key ;
10. Method of marking ;
11. Recaptured after specified period (minimum 24 hours) ;
12. Count number recaptured and number marked ;
13. Reference to return froghoppers to habitat at end / reference
to avoidance of paint on legs ; 8
Style Account is concise and well organised, there is good use of technical
vocabulary and almost no spelling errors. – 2 marks
There is some lack of organisation, limited vocabulary and a
number of spelling errors. – 1 mark
The account lacks organisation, there is little or no technical
vocabulary and many spelling errors. – 0 marks 2
(b) Table of raw data with suitably labelled rows and columns ;
Formula for determination of population size e.g. Lincoln index / formula
(accept here or in plan) / reference to calculation of means (accept from table) ;
Suitable graphical format matched to suggested data ;
Graphical presentation allows for comparison ;
Reference to suitable statistical test for suggested data / named statistical
test correct for suggested data (accept here or in plan) ;
Null hypothesis stated (accept here or in plan) ; 6
(c) Limitations
Difficult to control all {abiotic / biotic} factors ;
Not all froghoppers counted {because some fly away / reference to
froghopper mobility};
Froghoppers may not re-distribute themselves after marking ;
Froghoppers may {emigrate / immigrate / die / be killed} between the time
of release and capture ;
Further work
Investigate {populations / numbers} at different stages of coppicing cycle
(if not mentioned in method) ;
Investigate for different types of coppiced woodland ;
Investigate the effect of coppicing on other insect species /
other species of froghopper ;
Investigate froghopper populations at different {seasons / times of day} ; 5
[21]

W2 Jan 2003 MS 2

You might also like