ENV 111
Week 2 Lab Questions
ENV 111: Introduction to Sustainability
Week2LabQuestions
1. State your hypothesis for the week 2 lab using an if/then format.
If the water sample contains microalgae, then the toxins in the water caused
the suffocation of the fish and lesions.
2. Explain why you chose this hypothesis based on facts or information presented before
the experiment is conducted.
I chose this hypothesis after conducting Week 1 Lab experiment. In the end we found
that toxins in the water caused the fish lesions. Prior to the experiment, Trisha provided
information about the status of the fish before their death. She mentioned that a report of
the fish autopsy and an analysis of the oxygen levels in the water was deficient in the
area where the fish died.
3. Analyze how natural resources and environmental services were impacted in the week
2 lab simulation.
The natural resources and environmental services were impacted by the significant loss
of fish. The major impact involves producing fish. Because many fish have died, Trisha
is unable to conduct business as usual which negatively impacts the demand to feed the
population. With the fish dead, there is a high risk of increased microalgae and low
concentration of oxygen in the water. This will result in a buildup of nitrogen and
toxins, which will further kill other fish in the area.
4. Explain which results from the lab are useful for evaluating the validity of
your hypothesis and why. Include any data or graphs presented in the lab.
When examining the water sample under a microscope, we found microalgae in the
water. The area of where the lesion was located can explain how the fish died. In this
case, the P. piscicida toxin breaks down fish skin tissue causing an open and bleeding
lesion similar to the ones in the dead fish (Labster Virtual Laboratory). The microalgae
in the water sample indicated an algal bloom is occurring in the water where the fish
died. The sources of nitrogen around Trisha’s farm caused the toxins in the water. We
determined that the water flowing from Alex’s cotton field exceeded the level of
nitrogen to avoid algae blooms. human activities such as using fertilizers contribute to
increasing nitrogen. Nitrogen containing compounds act as nutrients in rivers. Bacteria
in water quickly converts nitrites to nitrates. Ammonia concentrations in surface water
warrant concerns about decreased oxygen in the water and accelerated eutrophication,
which is what happened at Trisha’s farm.
5. Evaluate the hypothesis based on the results and state whether you accept or reject
your hypothesis and why.
Week 2 Lab Questions
ENV 111: Introduction to Sustainability
Week2LabQuestions
1. State your hypothesis for the week 2 lab using an if/then format.
If the water sample contains microalgae, then the toxins in the water caused
the suffocation of the fish and lesions.
2. Explain why you chose this hypothesis based on facts or information presented before
the experiment is conducted.
I chose this hypothesis after conducting Week 1 Lab experiment. In the end we found
that toxins in the water caused the fish lesions. Prior to the experiment, Trisha provided
information about the status of the fish before their death. She mentioned that a report of
the fish autopsy and an analysis of the oxygen levels in the water was deficient in the
area where the fish died.
3. Analyze how natural resources and environmental services were impacted in the week
2 lab simulation.
The natural resources and environmental services were impacted by the significant loss
of fish. The major impact involves producing fish. Because many fish have died, Trisha
is unable to conduct business as usual which negatively impacts the demand to feed the
population. With the fish dead, there is a high risk of increased microalgae and low
concentration of oxygen in the water. This will result in a buildup of nitrogen and
toxins, which will further kill other fish in the area.
4. Explain which results from the lab are useful for evaluating the validity of
your hypothesis and why. Include any data or graphs presented in the lab.
When examining the water sample under a microscope, we found microalgae in the
water. The area of where the lesion was located can explain how the fish died. In this
case, the P. piscicida toxin breaks down fish skin tissue causing an open and bleeding
lesion similar to the ones in the dead fish (Labster Virtual Laboratory). The microalgae
in the water sample indicated an algal bloom is occurring in the water where the fish
died. The sources of nitrogen around Trisha’s farm caused the toxins in the water. We
determined that the water flowing from Alex’s cotton field exceeded the level of
nitrogen to avoid algae blooms. human activities such as using fertilizers contribute to
increasing nitrogen. Nitrogen containing compounds act as nutrients in rivers. Bacteria
in water quickly converts nitrites to nitrates. Ammonia concentrations in surface water
warrant concerns about decreased oxygen in the water and accelerated eutrophication,
which is what happened at Trisha’s farm.
5. Evaluate the hypothesis based on the results and state whether you accept or reject
your hypothesis and why.
