Jan 2003 W2

1.

(a) Sections in 1g dm–3 IAA Final length / mm

Sections in 10g dm –3 IAA

Increases in length % / mm

Final length / mm

Increases in length % / mm

22

7

46.7

25

10

66.7

25

10

66.7

28

13

86.7

24

9

60.0

26

11

73.3

23

8

53.3

27

12

80.0

22

7

46.7

25

10

66.7

20

5

33.3

26

11

73.3

25

10

66.7

29

14

93.3

24

9

60.0

24

9

60.0

23

8

53.3

26

11

73.3

24

9

60.0

23

8

53.3

Mean increase

8.2

54.7

Mean increase

10.9

72.7

Neat table correctly formatted ; [shaded columns optional] Correct rows and columns with labels and units ; Increases in length correct ; All means correct ;

4

Correctly orientated and labelled axes ; {Bar / histogram} format AND comparative data ; Data plotted correctly accept simple bar chart of means or class sizes if appropriate ;

3

(c)

There is no difference in increase in lengths between the two concentrations ;

1

(d)

Reject the null hypothesis / there is a difference in the lengths of sections in the two concentrations ; Calculated t value is greater than the tabulated value ; At the 5% confidence limit / greater than 2.10 ; 3

(b)

[11]

W2 Jan 2003 MS

1

2.

(a)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Style

{Selection / standardisation} of {coppiced / non coppiced} e.g. same tree species OR minimum of two abiotic factors ; Investigate zones at same {time of day / season} / in same weather conditions ; {Suitable sized / identical} area(s) within zones in {m2 / reference to standard quadrat size} ; Method of selection of sampling sites described e.g. by use of a random numbers table ; Suitable, named method of collection, e.g. pooter / sweep net / beating tray / pitfall trap ; Standardisation of collecting method e.g. standard sweep / time for beating etc ; Number of samples within each zone (at least 10) ; Sensible method of preventing escape ; Method of identification e.g. use of key ; Method of marking ; Recaptured after specified period (minimum 24 hours) ; Count number recaptured and number marked ; Reference to return froghoppers to habitat at end / reference to avoidance of paint on legs ; 8 Account is concise and well organised, there is good use of technical vocabulary and almost no spelling errors. – 2 marks There is some lack of organisation, limited vocabulary and a number of spelling errors. – 1 mark

(b)

(c)

The account lacks organisation, there is little or no technical vocabulary and many spelling errors. – 0 marks

2

Table of raw data with suitably labelled rows and columns ; Formula for determination of population size e.g. Lincoln index / formula (accept here or in plan) / reference to calculation of means (accept from table) ; Suitable graphical format matched to suggested data ; Graphical presentation allows for comparison ; Reference to suitable statistical test for suggested data / named statistical test correct for suggested data (accept here or in plan) ; Null hypothesis stated (accept here or in plan) ;

6

Limitations Difficult to control all {abiotic / biotic} factors ; Not all froghoppers counted {because some fly away / reference to froghopper mobility}; Froghoppers may not re-distribute themselves after marking ; Froghoppers may {emigrate / immigrate / die / be killed} between the time of release and capture ; Further work Investigate {populations / numbers} at different stages of coppicing cycle (if not mentioned in method) ; Investigate for different types of coppiced woodland ; Investigate the effect of coppicing on other insect species / other species of froghopper ; Investigate froghopper populations at different {seasons / times of day} ;

5 [21]

W2 Jan 2003 MS

2