University of the Philippines-Cebu

High School Program

Gorordo Ave. , Lahug, Cebu City

Laboratory Report in SCIENCE 7

( THE MACARONI EXPERIMENT ON POPULATION DYNAMICS )

Submitted By :

Christian Laurenze C. Lauron

GRADE 7 – BARTLETT STUDENT

Submitted To :

Ms. Jeraline E. Gumalal

SCIENCE 7 TEACHER

OCTOBER 26, 2015

INTRODUCTION :
This is a laboratory report to find and prove some facts in which population dynamics in the
ecosystem base from. This topic is chosen in order to understand more on the species’ interaction
because it is not just a linear aspect. Instead, it operates on an abstract basis in which one predicts
by using relevant information on it and by calculating on it. Therefore, the population dynamics of an
ecosystem is dependent on the population of another species it is connected to , and environmental
factors like calamities. It always revolves on the birth rate, death rate, immigration, and emigration
of the species. These factors, which can be defined as mathematical concepts, can be used to predict
the outcome of the species. These operate on literal aspects, but are surrounded by abstract
definitions. This means that in totality, population dynamics is an abstract scaled concept defined by
mathematical relationships.

One thing to note is that in populations, there is a certain population rate in which the
population can only carry steadily. This is called the carrying capacity. In looking at some graphs, the
population rates can occur as rising steeply at one moment, and then suddenly starting to go down
either steeply or steadily. This means that at the moment of rise, the carrying capacity has already
been reached ,and then the next thing is that the population is decreasing. This is because the
population has grown too much offspring that the population cannot handle, therefore, a number of
offspring die in a significant rate, which could topple the population down or lower it down to a
more stable level. Other factors that could topple the population down include calamities, highly
invasive species interaction, and other diseases caused by genetics.

The population is highly dependent on the amount of energy it could produce. For example,
if a population of snakes sees an increased population of vulnerable prey for a certain amount of
time, their species could multiply fastly, and possibly over their carrying capacity. If this occurs, the
energy placed in the population is not enough to supply every snake. What happens is that the
population of snakes decrease significantly.

Also, there is another situation. If the same population of snakes were at the peak of
predation on these vulnerable prey, what happens if these prey start adapting. Two things can
happen. One is the counter-adaptation of the predator, which includes predating a new prey or
finding better ways to hunt the prey, or both. Another thing can occur, which involves having the
predators not adapting to their environment, which causes their long-time, straight population
decrease. If the snakes adapt, no population decrease occurs or the population decreases for a short
time then gains back to the more stable population rate which is near the carrying capacity.

This laboratory report will remind again the people the significance to keep a population
stable. What do conscious sudden interactive species like us have to do with this ? We, humans,
should not create a sudden major interaction with a certain species to avoid major population
fluctuations, which could even probably cause a chain reaction in the ecosystem’s food web and
food chain.

METHODOLOGY :
This is an experiment operated on a randoms-cancelled basis to achieve a non-literal control.
This means that the random actions cancel the randomness of the conditions of the materials here,
which is similar to the randomness of the subjects here. The experiment in which this was based
from was done on October 21, 2015- 9:50-11:00 AM at the University of the Philippines High School
Cebu Open Court and Open Fields.

The experiment will need 42 people. Two of them will be the operator of the experiment;
the 40 people will be divided into four groups which will bring equal amounts of dyed macaronis.
The macaroni dye will be assigned to them. The dyes used in our experiment were red, green, blue,
and yellow. Two people in each group will serve as the counters, and in total, there are 8 players in
each group. For formality’s sake, there are 42 people. Two of which become the facilitators ( one is
the timer ). The 40 people will be divided into 4 groups, in which 2 people in each group get to be
the counters. The rest become the players. The counters will need pen and paper to record the
group’s scores, and one facilitator needs to have a timer.

The facilitators will spread the dyed macaronis over the open field. It should be done to the
best they could that they could get the macaronis spread equally over the fields. The facilitators
should make sure that the other 40 people cannot observe their preparation to avoid cheating.
Afterwards, the 40 people will come to the Open Court to gather. It is made sure that the 8 players
in each group should be divided by 2’s, making 4 sub-groups. The first will be called Generation 1,
the second will be Generation 2, and so on until Generation 4. Then, the facilitators will call all
members of Generation 1 of all colors to come , and they will be instructed to get the macaronis of
their color unless instructed to, for if not, they will be disqualified and the experiment shall repeat.

Generation 1’s collection will be timed by the timing facilitator by 30 seconds. Afterwards,
their collected macaronis will be counted by the counters of each group , and it shall be recorded.
This is what is to be done on the rest of the generations. They will also be given the same time frame
for collection. In Round 2, the same process will apply, except for the fact that the generations will
be timed for 1 minute for collection. Their scores should be recorded. And in every four generations
finished collecting, a round is finished. In the experiment, there shall be two rounds, and in the first
round, the players are only allowed to collect macaronis of the same color.
 But, during the second round, a change of rules will be applied. After the first generation
here completes, the color team with the highest score will be able to take macaronis of the color
team with the least score for the next round. For example, if Red was the least and Green was the
highest in score on the first generation, Green will be able to take macaronis of the Red in the
second generation , which is the next round. This will be the layout of the two rounds. Throughout
the experiment, these should be followed.

After this, results from all groups will be accumulated.

In this part, I shall discuss about what turned in my and Bartlett’s experiment. We shall look
if the facts on population dynamics are applied, and we will try to put it into, a more understandable
logical explanation.

Round 1
40

35

30

25

Axis Title 20

15

10

0
RED - Generation 1 RED- Generation 2 RED - Generation 3 RED- Generation 4
 Round 2
70

60

50

40
Axis Title
30

20

10

0
RED - Generation 1 RED - Generation 2 RED - Generation 3 RED - Generation 4

We can see here that the RED TEAM has crossed its carrying capacity during Generation3,
and the effect was expressed during Generation Four in which the score decreased by 7 macaronis.
This occurred again during Round 2, when there were two spikes that were over the carrying
capacity. During Generation 1 on Round 2, it spikes to 57, then dropped to 50. Then, we observe
another spiking to 60. Then it decreased very significantly to 41. The drops in the graph show no
major downfall in which the line starts again from the bottom. In here, we see that predation
success experienced minor downfalls, and in general, their predation success gradually kept on
rising. This seems to be a picture of a stable predator and prey species.

In the first round, the RED TEAM has made a mediocre rise, which is ironically excellent in
the view of stability. During the second round, the RED TEAM has not experienced another predator
preying on its prey. This has made it an advantageous position of itself, and I think that this
seemingly advantageous or lucky position is actually where stability is approximated.
 Round 1
18

16

14

12

10
Axis Title
8

0
GREEN - Generation 1 GREEN - Generation 2 GREEN - Generation 3 GREEN - Generation 4

Round 2
45

40

35

30

25
Axis Title
20

15

10

0
GREEN - Generation 1 GREEN Generation 2 GREEN - Genertion 3 GREEN - Generation 4

As we look here at the GREEN TEAM, we see that they experienced major downfalls in
predation success as it was about to soar ,especially in the second round, since it looks like that the
downfall of the GREEN TEAM was holding onto the abnormally rising predation success of the other
team, in this case, the BLUE TEAM, which could have taken its prey, being opportunistic by the new
rules applied. We can see here that as it was about to rise, the new rules went to the favor of the
BLUE TEAM. We can see here that when the second round started, the predators of the GREEN
TEAM were not able to adapt to this change, and this very dangerous situation can kill the species
immediately. This means that these predators were thinking that the situation will stay the same, so
they were not making some opportunistic actions to be able to handle change. But, they did not, and
this made them lose in the experiment.
 Round 1
18

16

14

12

10
Axis Title
8

Round 2
40

35

30

25

Axis Title 20

15

10

As we look here, the YELLOW TEAM generally experienced a rise in their success, but as
we look closer to find the point in which all the points average, it seems to be a bit too low for
sustainability. I think that if the experiment was performed longer, we could probably appreciate the
possible rise of the YELLOW TEAM’S predation success rates. Nevertheless, as we look at thee
figures, it turns out that the YELLOW TEAM was too gradual in rise that during the time change
came, they were the ones inflicted by their dependence on the constancy misconception. They were
taken by the BLUE TEAM, which caused their very small rise from the third round to the fourth
round.
 Round 1
45

40

35

30

25 Round 1

20

15

10

0
BLUE- Generation 1 BLUE - Generation 2 BLUE- Generation 3 BLUE - Generation 4

Round 2
100
90
80
70
60
Round 2
50
40
30
20
10
0
BLUE - Generation 1 BLUE- Generation 2 BLUE- Generation 3 BLUE - Generation 4

Looking at the figures here, the BLUE TEAM has already observed change-resilient
behaviors, as what can be shown by the high predation success rates. However, as the second round
came, they experienced a gradual decrease in number, which can be caused by their
overconsumption of prey during the first round. As change came, it came to them that they could
get the resources of another predator to their advantage, as stated by the new rule applied at this
round. Using this, they got opportunistic on having the variety, which possibly meant to them higher
quantity. But their dependence on variety and their catastrophic situation did not cancel each other.
Supposedly, the BLUE TEAM can get the variety of food from the others, which could have
compensated for their overconsumption. But, I think that their rise was about to be shown if the
experiment was longer. I think that their compensation was about to be rewarded, but not in the
certain time frame.
 Talking in terms of stability, the BLUE TEAM was not able to achieve stability, although
they adapted to the new rule.

CONCLUSION :
By looking at these figures, I conclude that the principles of population dynamics are
evidently existing within populations and that these principles can be used to control stability in
unstable populations if we could probably introduce keystone species.