Methods:
1.
Capturing a sample population from the pasta population
Marking the pastas with different coloured markers
3.
Releasing the marked population back in the bag
4.
With eyes closed, capturing a random sample
5.
Calculations:
First Trial - 34/N=8/74
N=315
Second Trial - 34/N=4/36
N=306
Third Trial - 34/N=4/28
N=238
%Error= (Theoretical-Experimental)/Theoretical
%Error = (560 - 286)/560
= 49%
Analysis:
1. Average estimate: 586
Actual size: 286
Our estimate was near double the actual size we picked out
2. a) In my opinion a big factor affecting the accuracy of our estimate are the amount of pastas we captured. In our first trial we captured around 34 pastas and re-captured only 74 pastas. In that re-capture only 8 pastas were marked which had a big impact on our estimate because it was almost tripled the actual population. For our second trial we re-captured 36 and only 4 of the pastas were marked. This also happened for the 2nd and 3rd trials we had, which led to our results not being accurate.
b) In the actual world, animals are mobile meaning they are constantly moving around. This makes it hard for ecologist to find and capture them. Marking pastas might seem easy, but animals are way more complex when it comes to this process of tagging them. Other problems ecologists might encounter are that animals reproduce and die constantly. This has an impact on the process that ecologists go through because you can never have an exact number on the animal population. Also, animals immigrate and emmigrate which goes back to the fact that they are a mobile population. Overall, this process of tagging is the only way for ecologist to estimate the specific size of a population.
3. The first thing I would change in this design would be the pastas because of its size and shape. Another important thing is do more than 3 trials to get more accurate results, because in our 3 trials we didn't achieve the most accurate result we wanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment