Theo Price-Waldman

3-29-18
BIOL 204L-005
Timothy Ohlert
Homework 8

Part 1:

1.

Energy Density Average Standard Deviation Range

(kJ*g-1) (kJ*g-1) (kJ*g-1) (kJ*g-1)
Covered 16.500 20.718 131.099
Uncovered 11.750 2.120 9.335

2.

T-test p-value
Uncovered vs. Covered Energy Density 0.192293
 Upon performing a t-test, comparing the energy densities of the covered and uncovered energy
densitites, I obtained a p-value of 0.192293. This value is below this given alpha of 0.05,
indicating that our results are not statistically significant. Therefore, we cannot reject the null
hypothesis and cannot make a definitive statement whether there is a relationship between the
energy densities of uncovered and covered systems.

3.

Energy Density Percent Error

Covered 39.28%
Uncovered 27.97%

Part 2:

1. Male and female Hoary bats engage in different thermoregulatory strategies to conserve
energy. By varying their metabolic rate, males and females of the same species can change the
amount of energy needed to maintain homeostasis. In the pre-lab paper that we read, the
researchers detailed the strategies undertaken by male bats and female bats, both pregnant and
non-pregnant. When exposed to cold temperatures, male bats responded by entering into a
state called torpor, where they lower their metabolic rate substantially (Cryan, Wolf 2003). In
contrast, most females do not enter torpor when exposed to cold temperatures. This is because
most of the surveyed female bats were pregnant, and they must retain a high metabolic rate to
provide for their fetus. If they were to let their body temperature drop to torpor levels, the
fetus would likely not be able to survive. However, non-pregnant female bats were able to
enter torpor, and could conserve energy in a similar fashion to the male bats. Because
metabolic rate is directly proportional to energy use, the bats that were able to enter torpor had
a much higher energy conservation rate than those who maintained a constant body
temperature regardless of the external temperature (Cryan, Wolf 2003)
Theo Price-Waldman
3-29-18
BIOL 204L-005
Timothy Ohlert
Part 3:

1. In lab, we used a mock-direct calorimetry setup that could have had multiple sources of error.
The initial setup that we used was not contained in a closed system at all. This means that heat
was lost to the environment, and that we did not know the effect that the ambient air had upon
the temperature of the water in our calorimeter. This would likely have thrown off our energy
density calculations, because we did not know the exact amount of energy being transferred
from our paraffin wax to our water. In our second setup, we tried to account for the sources of
error that were possible to control. To decrease the heat lost to the environment, we
attempted to create a more closed system. We decreased the distance between flame and
water by placing the was candle on a rubber stopper, which placed the flame directly on the
bottom of the water flask. We also placed a plastic container over our setup, which minimized
heat loss and also the effect that ambient air could have on our system. However, we needed to
maintain oxygen levels in our system, so we needed to prop the container open, creating a
system that was not entirely closed. We attempted several options to contain our system, but
we were not able to create a system that was 100% closed.

2. a. While metabolizing glucose, the hummingbirds produce 21.4 kJ of energy per liter CO2. While
metabolizing fat, the hummingbirds produce 27.8 kJ of energy per liter CO2. 21.4 kJ/27.8 kJ =
76.97%. 100 – 76.97 = 23.03. This indicates that if we were measuring glucose metabolism
instead of fat metabolism by CO2 production, we would underestimate the metabolic rate by
23.03%

b. While metabolizing glucose, the hummingbirds produce 21.4 kJ of energy per liter O2. While
metabolizing fat, the hummingbirds produce 19.5 kJ of energy per liter O2. 21.4 kJ/19.5 kJ =
1.0974. 100 – 109.74 = -9.74. This indicates that if we were measuring glucose metabolism
instead of fat metabolism by O2 production, we would overestimate the metabolic rate by
9.74%.

3. From the powerpoint, we get the equation:

 FRSTP = FR (BP/BPS )(TS /T)
 FRSTP = (50mL/min)(349 mmHg/760 mmHg)(273 K/278 K)
 FRSTP = (50)(0.45921)(0.9820)
 FRSTP = 22.547 mL/minute

Works Cited

Cryan, P. M., and B O Wolf. “Sex Differences in the Thermoregulation and Evaporative Water Loss of a
Heterothermic Bat, Lasiurus Cinereus, during Its Spring Migration.” Journal of Experimental
Biology, vol. 206, no. 19, Jan. 2003, pp. 3381–3390., doi:10.1242/jeb.00574.