For part 1, I hypothesized that the tweezer beak would do extremely well because it can eat a lot of food very quickly. My hypothesis was confirmed when 40% of the bird chicks had tweezer beaks. However, I overestimated how well the tweezers would do, because the binder clip came in for a close 2nd place at 33%. Because 40% of the second generation had tweezer beaks, my claim that tweezer beaks were a very useful trait is correct.
I also hypothesized that the entire population would have tweezer beaks. This did not happen over the span of 3 years that we tested, as only 40% of the chicks received tweezer beaks. However, the trend indicates that over a longer period time, the majority of the birds would have tweezer beaks and the other alleles would only be passed on through heterozygous birds. The current evidence proves my hypothesis incorrect, but a more precise and longer experiment may support my claim.
Percentage of chicks w/ each Beak (before environmental change)
When a drought occurred and wiped out all of the seed pod plants (toothpicks), I made the claim that the scissor beaked birds may not do as well due to their reliance on the seed pods. The percentage of chicks with scissor beaks decreased by 1%, indicating the scissor beaks weren't as favorable. But the percentage is definitely within the margin of error, meaning the drought made no significant difference for the scissor beaked birds. The binder clip beaked birds made 1% less chicks as well and the spoon beaked birds made 2% more chicks. Because these changes are also within the experiment's margin of error, the seed pods weren't an important food source in the ecosystem. My hypothesis is not supported by the data, but more accurate experimentation should corroborate my claim.
One error that I am pretty sure occurred is that each person has a different skill level at picking up the food. Because some people may be better at picking up the pieces than others, the results may show something that is dependent on skill rather than beak type. To fix this problem, I would rotate the beak types to each person in the table so that everyone has 3 years with each beak type. They would then find the numbers for each beak at the end of 3 years and average them out. This would make it so that every beak's numbers are altered in the same way by each person, resulting in data that isn't influenced by a group member's skill. I also think it would be more accurate if each beak type was more specialized and dependent on a single food type. For example, the scissor beaks were supposed to be affected by the absence of toothpicks, but they survived perfectly fine. Instead of scissor beaks and toothpicks, maybe it could have been done with a magnetic beak dependent on paper clips. If the paper clips were removed, it would have a much more visible effect on the birds with magnetic beaks.
The purpose of this lab was to see how environmental changes can affect the allele frequency of a population. This relates to what we have already learned because the vodcasts talked about favorable mutations and how environmental pressures select certain traits. This selection can cause a large change in the population over time. Our experiment was quite flawed because there was no real change in part 2. However, I now can apply my knowledge of incorrect experiment execution to other contexts. This is because I now know that variation in skill level can overshadow the result the experiment is trying to get to.
Percentage of chicks w/ each Beak (after environmental change)