Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Science
Biology
What is the logical explanation of the results shown in this study? O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone.

What is the logical explanation of the results shown in this study? O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone.

Human Anatomy & Physiology (11th Edition)
Human Anatomy & Physiology (11th Edition)
11th Edition
ISBN:9780134580999
Author:Elaine N. Marieb, Katja N. Hoehn
Publisher:Elaine N. Marieb, Katja N. Hoehn
Chapter1: The Human Body: An Orientation
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1RQ: The correct sequence of levels forming the structural hierarchy is A. (a) organ, organ system,...
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question
What is the logical explanation of the results shown in this study? O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone.
Transcribed Image Text:What is the logical explanation of the results shown in this study? O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. O One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs less vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities more greatly than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone. One hypothesis that could explain this result is that infection by parasites made frogs more vulnerable to trout, thereby reducing frog densities less than would occur from the combined (additive) effects due to parasites alone plus those due to trout alone.
Suppose that researchers wanted to examine the combined effects of an introduced predator (a trout) and the trematode parasite Ribeiroia on amphibian populations. To do this, they established frog populations in each of 40 artificial ponds. Each pond was assigned at random to one of four treatments (10 ponds per treatment): 1) neither trout or parasites were added to the pond (the "No trout, no parasite" treatment); 2) no trout were added but parasites were added ("No trout, parasite added"); 3) trout were added but parasites were not added ("Trout added, no parasite"); and 4) both trout and parasites were added ("Trout added, parasite added"). Each pond contained refugia where tadpoles could avoid attack by trout, to avoid fish predators driving frog populations to extinction in an artificial pond, unlike what typically occurs in a natural pond. After two breeding seasons, the researchers estimated the density of frogs in each pond. The results are shown in the table and the figure. Treatment No trout, no parasite No trout, parasite added Trout added, no parasite Trout added, parasite added Average frog density (per 10 m² of pond surface area) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Average frog density (per 10 m² of pond surface area) 180.2 111.4 125.8 14.3 No trout, Trout added, No trout, Trout added, no parasite parasite added no parasite parasite added Treatment Use the information above to answer this question and the following questions.
Transcribed Image Text:Suppose that researchers wanted to examine the combined effects of an introduced predator (a trout) and the trematode parasite Ribeiroia on amphibian populations. To do this, they established frog populations in each of 40 artificial ponds. Each pond was assigned at random to one of four treatments (10 ponds per treatment): 1) neither trout or parasites were added to the pond (the "No trout, no parasite" treatment); 2) no trout were added but parasites were added ("No trout, parasite added"); 3) trout were added but parasites were not added ("Trout added, no parasite"); and 4) both trout and parasites were added ("Trout added, parasite added"). Each pond contained refugia where tadpoles could avoid attack by trout, to avoid fish predators driving frog populations to extinction in an artificial pond, unlike what typically occurs in a natural pond. After two breeding seasons, the researchers estimated the density of frogs in each pond. The results are shown in the table and the figure. Treatment No trout, no parasite No trout, parasite added Trout added, no parasite Trout added, parasite added Average frog density (per 10 m² of pond surface area) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Average frog density (per 10 m² of pond surface area) 180.2 111.4 125.8 14.3 No trout, Trout added, No trout, Trout added, no parasite parasite added no parasite parasite added Treatment Use the information above to answer this question and the following questions.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 4 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Tissue Renewal
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, biology and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Human Anatomy & Physiology (11th Edition)
Human Anatomy & Physiology (11th Edition)
Biology
ISBN:
9780134580999
Author:
Elaine N. Marieb, Katja N. Hoehn
Publisher:
PEARSON
Biology 2e
Biology 2e
Biology
ISBN:
9781947172517
Author:
Matthew Douglas, Jung Choi, Mary Ann Clark
Publisher:
OpenStax
Anatomy & Physiology
Anatomy & Physiology
Biology
ISBN:
9781259398629
Author:
McKinley, Michael P., O'loughlin, Valerie Dean, Bidle, Theresa Stouter
Publisher:
Mcgraw Hill Education,
Molecular Biology of the Cell (Sixth Edition)
Molecular Biology of the Cell (Sixth Edition)
Biology
ISBN:
9780815344322
Author:
Bruce Alberts, Alexander D. Johnson, Julian Lewis, David Morgan, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter
Publisher:
W. W. Norton & Company
Laboratory Manual For Human Anatomy & Physiology
Laboratory Manual For Human Anatomy & Physiology
Biology
ISBN:
9781260159363
Author:
Martin, Terry R., Prentice-craver, Cynthia
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Inquiry Into Life (16th Edition)
Inquiry Into Life (16th Edition)
Biology
ISBN:
9781260231700
Author:
Sylvia S. Mader, Michael Windelspecht
Publisher:
McGraw Hill Education
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS