Saprobic Index Change from Upstream to Downstream in Both Simulations Worksheet

  • Post category:Nursing
  • Reading time:8 mins read
  • Post author:

Saprobic Index Change from Upstream to Downstream in Both Simulations Worksheet

Nursing homework help

Class_____________

Date__________

Name______________________________________

SimRiver Lab (complete the simulation with the instructions on this sheet.

You can use this sheet to document the lab, then use it to complete the D2L quiz associated with the lab. This worksheet accompanies level 3. For Scenario #1 “Poor Water Quality,” make an environment along the river that causes poor water quality throughout the river with a saprobic index range of 2.5 to 3.5. Then, for Scenario #2 “Good Water Quality” make improvements to the environment to better the water quality until the saprobic index is within a range of 1 to 2.  Go to this website:  Begin by clicking on “SimRiver6 (University of Tokyo, Japan)”, click on your http://www.u-gakugei.ac.jp/~diatom/en/simriver/index.html language choice.  Click on “Auto Index Calculation” in the lower left side of the screen.  Click on Level 3 to complete the assignment, then click on start.  Click on the choices available (land use, sewage plant, and population) to form the communities along the river (up stream, up middle, etc…) to form a river with poor water quality, then click “next.” Be sure to include people. Document your choices in the table on this sheet when you have met the saprobic index goal.  For analysis and data to fill in to the tables, click on summer and up stream, then click “OK.” You will be asked to determine the water quality index for all areas of the stream.  Click on “Species Table” to identify diatoms on the slide, click “with an answer”. Diatoms will appear. Use the numbers generated to fill in the tables on this sheet. To analyze the various areas on the stream you will need to click “slide” (upper left corner), then click back to the stream where “up middle” will be available. Repeat for each area in the river.  Repeat the procedure to complete the data tables for Scenario #2, “Clean” water. Population numbers you can select are different among the land use. » Forest 0, 10, 20, 50 » Farm 0, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 » Residence 0, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, Sewage treatment plant can be set only in residence area. 10000 Scenario #1 Poor Water Quality: use level 3 to produce a polluted river (high saprobic index) Area Land use Sewage Plant Up stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Up middle Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Middle stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Down middle Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Down stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Season Spring Summer Fall (Autumn) Population Winter Results of SimRiver for Poor Water Quality Area # of Most Common Species name species w/ with a saprobic value of 2.5 sapropbic value of 3 or above and above Up stream Saprobic Index Water quality ~Between 2.5 & 3.5 Up middle Middle stream Down middle Down stream Scenario #2 Good Water Quality: use level 3 to produce a clean river (low saprobic index) (Goal is to improve water quality) Area Land use Sewage Plant Population Up stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Up middle Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Middle stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Down middle Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Down stream Forest Farm Residence Present Absent Season Spring Summer Fall (Autumn) Results of SimRiver Good Water Quality Area # of Most Common Species name species w/ with a saprobic value of 2 or sapropbic below value of 3 and above Up stream Winter Saprobic Index Water quality ~Between 1&2 Up middle Middle stream Down middle Down stream Questions: 1. Explain what changes were made from simulation 1 to simulation 2 to improve the quality of the water. 2. How did the Saprobic index change going from upstream to downstream in both simulations? Scenario #1 Poor Water Quality: Scenario #2 Good Water Quality: 3. Propose an explanation for why the saprobic index may have changed from upstream to downstream in either simulation. 4. Based on the types of diatoms that appeared in each scenario, which species is more likely to be found in a river with poor water quality?

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100