Botany 111 Term Project: Microaquarium

Lucas Hietala, Section 002, Lucas I. Wb. H,

Post 5: Observation 4

 

      Regarding the previous post in this series: an error was made in the assumption that the majority of the creatures were dead or missing. On 11/12/13, the final observation of the MicroAquarium™ was made at about 1:30pm. Contrary to the expected lack of life save for the previously mentioned rotifers and lone seed flea, there was a new flush of life in the aquarium that seemed to appear from nowhere. It is, therefore, hypothesized that the organisms observed to now be merrily carrying on their lives had hidden in the soil and perhaps behind the thicker leaves and obstructions in the water. The husks of diatoms and dead organisms remain, however, leading to the conclusion that there was still a large number of deaths in the aquarium, though the assumption that most of the organisms were involved in this destruction was erroneous. 

    General observation of the aquarium showed that the water level had further reduced to approximately fill half of the volume of the MicroAquarium™, if that. It is possible that the lid of the aquarium was left ajar or was improperly sealed, leading to an increased rate of evaporation. Food pellet particulates still remained in the water, though they had by then almost completely been dissolved or devoured, and only a few small clumps of the food remained, and these were only lazily perused by the aquarium fauna. Growth of at least two varieties of algae was also observed, though the precise species were unidentified. It is suspected that the algae was either present in the water sample take from the Quarry itself, or were imported on one of the plants added to the aquarium.

    It should be noted that while the rotifers found in the aquarium previously remain, they are less numerous than the last observation, or at least appear to be. This is balanced out by a fresh batch of amoebas that now haunt the middle layer of the aquarium, slowly making their way from the A. varium  to the Fontalis sp., possibly in search of food. Indeed, in addition to the amoeba, every species in previous posts of this blog were identified and recorded, including the Lovecraftian terror worm (Aeolosoma sp.), and the seed flea (Ostacod sp.) that was apparently not the only one of its kind in the aquarium. 

    New organisms identified included a large Philodina sp. rotifer that had made its home in the soil, which was only seen twice, sticking its head out of the substrate to suck in more food from the surrounding water (Covich, 2010). The creature had an anterior region reminiscent of a digging machine, the two disks of its mouth chattering away like the blades of a saw, and it moved quite easily through the media, popping out of the soil quickly and darting back inside just as quickly. 

    An unknown species of Gastrotricha also made an appearance (Covich 2010). The little creature was quite small, and very graceful. Due to the fact that it was located quite close to the posterior (or anterior, difficult to distinguish) end of another organism that had similar traits, at first it was assumed to be that creature's offspring. However, after more careful examination of their tendencies and physiology, it became clear that the two creatures were not actually related. Instead, the delicate little organism eventually flitted away, keeping close to the soil, while its monstrous companion simply twitched about, its tusked end waving like a sleepy walrus. 

 

    As this is the last of the observations made, some last notes on material need to be noted:

The microscopes used for observations were Micromaster by Fisher Scientific, supplemented by camera-attached microscopes of the Olympus Ch30 variety with a Sony Handycam HDR-HC9 camera (McFarland, 2013). Images were processed using Adobe Photoshop 7.0 using a Windows 7 operating system.
    During the course of the experiment, according to the informative blog page by Dr. McFarland, the temperature in the lab remained at 15.6-17.9 degrees Celsius, and lighting was provided using a 15cm, 30 watt light suspended over the aquariums. Light cycling was recorded as being constant and fixed, with ceiling lights coming on and going off at "random time periods between 8:00AM - 12:00PM" while the experiment was in effect (McFarland, 2013). 

     These facts were left until the end of this experiment so the complete range of temperatures and the complete listing of materials used could be noted. Only two microscopes were used for the course of this experiment for observations (barring the possibility that they were moved), and only one camera was utilized (again, barring the possibility of replacement). For the sake of completeness, the complete list of information for products used in this series of information are listed in Dr. McFarland's blog, a link to which is provided in the bibliography.

 

Bibliography

Corvich, Alan P. and James H. Thorp editors. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. 3rd Edition. Elsevier Inc. 2010. 1021 pages. 

 McFarland, Kenneth [Internet] Botany 111 Fall 2013. [cited 10/26/2013]. Available from http://botany1112013.blogspot.com/