1.
Calculation- 4%
this is what i got as well2.
What does hardy about the frequency over 10 generations- that the frequency of the alleles in the population won't change
i wrote that the proportion of recessive alles will remain the same from generation to generation provided that there were no mutations, selection, they're isolated etc.3.
Use probability and chance- there is a probability of 5% or less that the change in allele frequency is due to chance. therefore we reject our null hypothesis that the frequency of alleles wont change. (not sure about this, can someone back me up if they put something similar,cheers)
there was no difference at 0.05 probabilty and the results was due to chance4.
What type of selection is this- Stabilising selection
- The recessive allele has decreased in frequency. it was at the extreme of the range of alleles as the hardy calculation proved it was only present in 4% of the population. with a further decrease it means that alleles closer to the middle of the range are being selected for, hence its stabilising.
i wrote directional as i explained before...Mites Question (cant remember many of these question so i'll try my best.)
1.
Why was the data selected at random- to remove bias from the experiment. It allows us to form a valid correlation between numbers of mites and successful breeding chicks. (not sure about 2nd point)
i wrote to eliminate bias and to allows a stats test to be calculated and performed2.
Describe the data and does it agree with the statement that more mites decrease successful breeds???? (think that was the question)- with small increases in mites the amount of successful breeds fluctuated at around 80.
- with a large increase in mites (170), the number of successful breeds decreases to 42 from 86 at 15 mites.
- However, without further data we cannont conclude that an increase in mites does cause a decrease in successful chicks.
i wrote basically the same and i included about that results might be due to another factor3.
State a null hypothesis- there is no significant statistical difference between the numbers of mites present and the amount of successful chicks.
exactly what i wrote4.
Spearmans showed a negative correlation between mites and successful chicks what does this mean?- That an increase in mites does not effect the number of succesful chicks. (is this right?) ...
i wrote a negative correlation "/5.
Describe the data in the graph- For tits with large oil glands, many of the points are close or touching the line of best fit. However, for tits with small oil glands, few points are close to the line or touching it. However, overall there is a slight positive correlation.
i cant rememver this one >.<6.
Does measuring oil gland size increase reliability?- yes because different tits have different sizes of oil glands and therefore we are removing this variable from the experiment. (dunno if this is right) ....
i wrte about surface area as i explained before7.
Mites eat pathogenic bacteria and fungus, how could this effect tits and their breeding?- tits are less likely to contract pathogenic disease or fungus infection so less energy is used to fight them off and more energy can be used for reproduction and breeding behaviour. therefore the numbers of successful breeds are likely to increase.
i outlined reproductive success and about survival...not sure though >.<