The Impact of Environmental and Ecological Process on Heat Regulation in Ectotherms

Kali Gibbons

Biology 301L

February 26, 2019

 Gibbons 2

Abstract

Ectotherms, or organisms that rely on the environment for heat and temperature

regulation, live in a variety of different environments globally (Endotherms and ectotherms [date

unknown]). This experiment was designed to create and test two contrasting microhabitats in one

singular environment that would be appealing to ectotherms and measure how the heat loss and

temperature regulation differs between the two in a 20-minute time interval. The two

microhabitats focused on in this experiment were hot bricks in direct sunlight and the inside of a

fountain in a shaded area. It was hypothesized that organisms inside the fountain would lose heat

more rapidly than those on the bricks due to the contributing environmental factors in the brick

environment. The data collected at the end of the experiment proved the hypothesis to be true,

something that can be attributed to the presence of convection, conduction, and radiation within

the brick microhabitat. The collected data was also run through an ANOVA statistical difference,

which calculated the p-value of the data to be 1.45E-7. This was smaller than the original alpha-

value 0.05, which proved the results to be significantly different from each other.

Introduction

Ectotherms are organisms that regulate their own heat and body temperature and will

most likely be found doing so by performing activities, such as basking in the sun or finding a

shaded area, that allows their external environment to either warm or cool their body temperature

(Endotherms and ectotherms [date unknown]). Example of commonly known and seen

ectotherms generally include fish, reptiles, and amphibians; however, more specifically one

would think of lizards, turtles, frogs, alligators, etc. This aspect of life for ectotherms does limit

their environmental habitats immensely, since they are completely dependent on the

environmental climate and condition for survival (Endotherms and ectotherms [date unknown]).
 Gibbons 3

An organism’s status as an ectotherm doesn’t only affect its body temperature and heat

regulation, it also has effect on the energy used by the organism daily. Endothermic organisms,

meaning organisms that regulate their own body temperature, use up immense amounts of energy

when metabolic processes are taking place to regulate body temperature; meanwhile, ectotherms

use almost no energy to regulate body temperature (Endotherms and ectotherms [date

unknown]). Moving from warm to cool areas, rather than the body using the metabolism for heat,

leads to considerably less internal energy consumption, which is the reason that most ectotherms

don’t need to eat a lot to survive (Endotherms and ectotherms [date unknown]). Ectotherms rely

solely on heat transfer through different environmental processes to regulate their internal body

temperature. An example of one of these processes is conduction, which is the transfer of heat

through direct contact, and is found to occur most often in solid objects. Another example is

convection, which occurs in liquids and gases, and requires movement for the heat transfer to

occur. Finally, a common source of heat for ectotherms comes from radiation, meaning heat

transfer that doesn’t require any contact between objects, the source of which is typically the sun

(Surbhi, 2017).

In this experiment, the objective was ultimately to measure how different environmental

conditions can affect the body temperature of ectotherms, since they rely completely on their

external environment for temperature regulation, without an outside source of heat acting upon

them (Biophysical ecology…2019). It was predicted beforehand that the designed microhabitat

A (inside the fountain) would cause ectothermic simulators to lose heat more quickly than the

simulators placed in microhabitat B (on the bricks) (Ma et al. 2018). This would happen because

there are more contributing environmental factors – including convection, conduction, and
 Gibbons 4

radiation – acting upon microhabitat B that will substantially decrease the amount of heat lost in

the environment, and within the ectothermic organisms as a result of this (Ma et al. 2018).

Materials and Methods

The experiment, designed to mimic microhabitats ectotherms may encounter in their

environment, began with a discussion about what microhabitats to create to receive the most

telling results. After weighing the options available, it was decided it would be best to design the

experiment using hot bricks in direct sunlight as one microhabitat, and the inside of a fountain in

a shaded area, both located outside the Thomas Cooper Library (Biophysical ecology…2019).

Both microhabitats created experience different forms of heat transfer, something that is

important for obtaining significant and accurate results in this experiment. Next, five starting

temperatures were taken and averaged from each of the locations using an infrared thermometer,

which gave an accurate starting point for the data eventually collected during the experiment

(Biophysical ecology…2019).

To replicate the effects of temperature on ectotherms, 10 I-button data loggers were

inserted inside Peeps marshmallow candies, for insulation purposes. Before being placed inside

the candies, the I-button loggers were previously contained in a bath of boiling water, to allow

for more accurate temperature measurements when in the created microhabitats (Biophysical

ecology…2019). For the brick microhabitat, five of the Peeps were placed in a line in the exact

location our initial temperatures were taken from and monitored for 20 minutes using a timer.

Next, to measure the fountain habitat, strings were tied to each of the I-button loggers in the

remaining five Peeps, which were then placed inside the fountain and monitored for 20 minutes

using a timer. Both microhabitats were observed at the same time, to ensure that no change

occurred in the environment that would sway the results. When the 20 minutes for both
 Gibbons 5

microhabitats being studied were over, the I-button loggers were removed from the Peeps and

transported inside to begin data collection (Biophysical ecology…2019).

The I-button software was used to collect the temperature data for each minute from each

of the 10 I-button loggers used in the experiment. Ensure that data is presented in Celsius, before

saving the information to be transferred into Excel (Biophysical ecology…2019). All the data

from the 10 separate I-button files were imported into an Excel spreadsheet, that then calculated

all necessary information, including average, standard deviation, confidence intervals, and upper

and lower confidence intervals. A line graph was made to visually represent the data. Finally, a

single-factor ANOVA test was run that gave all the necessary statistical information needed to

come to accurate experimental conclusions (Biophysical ecology…2019).

Results

After completion of the designed experiment, the recorded data and information was

retrieved individually from each of the 10 I-button data loggers used. This data was transferred

into an Excel spreadsheet, which included things such as average, standard deviation, confidence

intervals, and upper and lower confidence intervals, all of which was used to create a graph that

acts as a visual representation of the data (Figure 1) (Biophysical ecology…2019). In addition to

performing these various functions, the data collected was also run through a single-factor

ANOVA statistical test (Figure 2), which ultimately showed the resulting p-value to equal 1.45E-

7 (Biophysical ecology…2019). The ANOVA test also gave overall average temperatures for the

fountain and brick microhabitats, which were 18.7 degrees Celsius and 31.6 degrees Celsius,

respectively. The overall variances for each of the designed scenarios were also calculated, with

the fountain variance being 2.7 and the brick variance being 0.175.
 Gibbons 6

Temperature equilibrium variation between ectotherms

inside the fountain and on hot bricks
45.00

40.00

35.00 Fountain Average

Fountain Upper 95% Confidence
30.00 Interval
Temperature, oC

Fountain Lower 95% Confidence

25.00 Interval
Brick Average
20.00
Brick Upper 95% Confidence
15.00 Interval
Brick Lower 95% Confidence
10.00 Interval

5.00

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Minutes Elapsed

Figure 1: Graph depicting the relationship between the temperatures recorded during the
experiment. The red lines represent the data collected from the Peeps placed on the brick surface,
while the blue lines represent the Peeps submerged inside the fountain. It’s easy to see here how
much more rapidly heat was lost by the simulators in the shaded fountain microhabitat.
This graph depicts the data collected with the I-button loggers for each minute that the

Peeps candy simulators were being exposed to the differing microhabitat. The red lines on the

graph exemplify the temperature results given from the Peeps that were placed on hot bricks

located in the direct sunlight, which shows a gradual decline in temperature, before plateauing

and remaining at a steady, warm temperature. The other microhabitat observed was the inside of

a fountain located in a shaded area, of which the results are shown by the blue lines on the graph.

It’s clear to see here that there was a rapid decline in temperature, before seeing a relatively

steady line at a cool temperature.

Anova: Single Factor

 Gibbons 7

SUMMARY
Su Averag Varianc
Groups Count m e e
93.
Fountain 5 5 18.7 2.7
Brick 5 158 31.6 0.175

ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between 416.02 416.02 289.408 1.45E- 5.31765
Groups 5 1 5 7 07 5
Within Groups 11.5 8 1.4375

427.52
Total 5 9        

Figure 2: Table showing the results calculated by running all the collected data through a single-
factor ANOVA test. The most important piece of information to take away from this table is the
calculated p-value, which explains the significance of the results and tells whether the tested
hypothesis is supported or refuted.
This table exhibits the results found after running the collected data through a single-

factor ANOVA test. Here we can see that the average temperatures in Celsius of the fountain and

brick microhabitats were 18.7 degrees and 31.6 degrees, respectively. Running the ANOVA test

also produced the experimental p-value, which was 1.45e-7. The p-value found is significantly

smaller than our alpha value, which was 0.05, meaning that the hypothesis proposed before

beginning the experiment was ultimately supported. This also shows the true significance of the

data found after completing the experiment.

Discussion

The results found after conducting and analyzing this experiment showed that the

microhabitat designed where the Peeps candies were placed in direct sunlight on hot bricks

experienced significantly less heat loss than the simulators placed within the other microhabitat,
 Gibbons 8

which was inside the fountain in the shade. This result can be easily attributed to the contributing

environmental factors found within each microhabitat, or lack thereof (Taucare-Rios et al. 2018).

When considering the fountain habitat, the only factor present was conduction; meanwhile, the

candies on the bricks were being simultaneously exposed to convection, conduction, and

radiation, all of which limited the overall heat lost (Taucare-Rios et al. 2018). Both conclusions

can be seen depicted in Graph 1 above, in which the red line represents the data from the brick

habitat and the blue line represents that of the fountain habitat. These are the results that the

group expected to see; however, it was not anticipated that they would be so drastically different,

or that both would eventually reach a plateau in temperature.

After running the statistical analysis tests, specifically single-factor ANOVA, it was

observed that the p-value of the data was 1.45E-7, which is significantly smaller than the alpha-

value of 0.05. This allows for the conclusion that the original hypothesis that the organisms in

microhabitat B would lose heat much more quickly than those in microhabitat A to be ultimately

supported by the data collected. It’s safe to assume that this is because of the effects that

contributing environmental factors have on ectothermic organisms. All this data and information

can be observed above in Table 1, which is the complete ANOVA chart generated.

The overall purpose of this experiment was to measure how different environmental

conditions can affect the body temperatures and heat regulation of ectotherms without any

outside sources of heat being applied to them. Overall, it was observed that certain

environmental conditions, specifically those that involve the absorption and release of heat, do

have a significant effect on ectotherms. In the future, scientists may find interest in expanding

this research experiment to include even more microhabitats and environments for observation,

or to even utilize different statistical tests and see if the results remain similar. More specifically,
 Gibbons 9

future tests could be done that use real ectotherm organisms rather than simulators, or they could

experiment using different environments and microhabitats to observe further how heat transfer

and regulation works in ectothermic organisms.

This experiment was essentially a small-scale model of something that impacts a large

array of organisms globally. The data collected at the conclusion of the study performed can be

used to further understand the biological processes of all ectothermic organisms and can even be

used to design future experiments that will investigate the topic even more and expand any

already existing knowledge. Using small-scale models, studies, or experiments is a good way for

scientists to get new information, data, and observations that can assist them in developing their

understanding of larger concepts or ideas. This information gathered can then be applied to new

projects and groups and can make a real impact on a more global scale, something that is

important when conducting large research projects in a scientific field.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my team members – Kate Roney, Grace Hubbard, Tim Malone, and

Nina Gambacorta - for assisting me in conducting this experiment, gathering the necessary data,

and helping to interpret and represent this data in the most logical way.
 Gibbons 10

End References

Biophysical ecology lab – Thermal environments. 2019.

Endotherms & ectotherms. Khan Academy. [accessed 2019 Feb 22].

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/principles-of-physiology/metabolism-and-
thermoregulation/a/endotherms-ectotherms

I-Button Analysis Software

Ma, Gang & Bai, Chun-Ming & Wang, Xue-Jing & Z Majeed, Muhammad & Ma, Chun-Sen
behavioural thermoregulation alters microhabitat utilization and demographic rates in
ectothermic invertebrates. Animal Behaviour. 142. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.06.003.

Microsoft Excel

Taucare-Rios A, Veloso C, Bustamante R. Thermal niche conservatism in an environmental gradient

in the spider Sicarius thomisoides (Araneae: Sicariidae): Implications for microhabitat selection.
Journal of Thermal Biology. 2018;78:298–303. doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.10.018

Surbhi S. Difference Between Conduction, Convection and Radiation (with Comparison Chart). Key
Differences. 2017 Feb 1 [accessed 2019 Feb 28]. https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-
conduction-convection-and-radiation.html