I.

Title The Growth of Mealworms on Two Different Substrates

MF General Biology I Biol 1406 - SLA

II. Abstract The larvae (yellow mealworms) of the darkling beetle, Tenebrio molitor, actively grow and constantly feed when living in environments composed entirely of energy rich food sources. The yellow mealworms, thrive in a meal flour rich environment versus one that is absent of its preferred food source. III. Introduction The type of substrate that the larvae (mealworm) of the darkling beetle (Tenebrio molitor) is exposed to can influence its growth. When placed in an environment strictly of its food source, the mealworms show signs of growth over a period of seven days. This growth is measured by comparing an initial mass of the mealworms (Day 0) and a final measuring of their mass seven days later (Day 7). The Tenebrio beetle as well as its larvae can live in habitats with very little water. The moisture content of 1% is usually sufficient to meet their requirements. An important end product of the beetles and larvaes metabolic oxidation is water (Yip, 200). They appear to feed continuously on energy rich food sources and hence, the hypothesis would be that the mealworm would show an increase in mass in a substrate (A) of meal flour and water. The hypothesis would also indicate that there would not be an increase in mass of the mealworms in a substrate (B), of soil and water.

The independent variable is the substrate type used in each vial. Manipulation of the mealworms environment different from its food source, would yield subjects less than or in equal mass from the initial Day 0 observation. The growth of the mealworms would become the measured dependent variable. The controlled part of this experiment is the constant temperature, amount of water, substrate, mealworm size and vial size. IV. Materials and Methods First Week A. Each group should select 5 mealworm larvae (so that each class has a total of 15 mealworm larvae per treatment) that are approximately the same size and age but which are less than full-sized (use larvae that weigh less than 0.15 g). Be careful to use live, crawling larvae. Avoid dormant larvae and pupae. (Note: Larvae are clean and harmless to humans.) B. Obtain 5 vials and use the china marker to mark a line 4 cm from the bottom of each vial. C. Fill each vial to the 4 cm line with the assigned substrate (A or B). D. Use the balance to determine the mass of each mealworm larva to the nearest 0.001 g. E. Record the mass of each mealworm as the initial mass (Day 0 mass).

F. Use a graduated 1 ml pipette to add 0.5 ml tap water to each vial. G. Place each mealworm larva in a marked vial containing assigned H. Place foam stoppers in the vials. I. Put vials in plastic container (labeled with your class and section number) located at the front desk. The instructor will place the vials in the 28C incubator or elsewhere in the classroom until the next lab session. Second Week A. Obtain your 5 vials from the instructor and determine the mass of each mealworm to the nearest 0.001g and record as final mass (Day 7 mass). B. Calculate total mass gain or loss for each larva and record. C. Compile class data. (Day 0, Day 7, gain or loss for both treatments). D. Organize data into graphs or tables (include appropriate legends and titles) (Cain, 2009.). V. Results The data of the measured weights of the mealworms in substrate A on Day 7 showed an average increase of weight of 0.0132 g, or 93.3% of the mealworms showed an increase in weight. As predicted in our initial hypothesis, there would be no obvious change in weight of the mealworms that were placed in vials substrate.

containing substrate B. The mean weight of our mealworms in substrate B showed a slight increase in of 0.006 g, in only 33.3% of the samples. This result was not significant enough to prove that they would have adequate food stores to survive over any expanded period of time. It is further suggested that they may remain in a dormant stage or perish if left in these surroundings. The alternate hypothesis had a p value of 0.009, less than 0.05, proving that substrate A was better that substrate B. Statistically, the Null Hypothesis was rejected because there was a significant increase in weights in substrate A compared to substrate B. VI. Discussion A common hypothesis in a simple experiment, as placing any organism in a substrate containing its preferred food source or one totally void of their food source should yield similar results. Is it scientifically correct to say that any organisms will yield similar results? No, the results can have different outcomes due to a variety of variables: including temperature, light, water, and nutrients present in the substrates. Other items, not commonly observed could also include the substrates characteristics such as color, texture, particle size. Also, there could be toxins or waste products present that may also contribute to the organism not gaining the predicted weight increases (Cain, 2009.).

VII. References Yip, Din Yan. Bringing life back to the biology laboratory investigations with mealworms. Journal of Biological Education 2000: 101-104. Print. Cain, Donna, et al. Biology 1406 & 1408 Lab Manual. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt, 2009. Print.

Mealworm Experiment Comparison of Two Independent Sample Means Mealworm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Treatment A Day Day Gain/Loss 0 7* 0.094 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.14 0.088 0.075 0.054 0.104 0.045 0.087 0.074 0.109 0.078 0.048 0.033 0.048 0.035 0.017 0.706 0.369 0.369 0.28 0.464 0.093 0.124 0.093 0.153 0.108 -0.0459 0.0284 0.0452 0.0305 0.0133 0.566 0.2815 0.2938 0.2263 0.3604 0.048 0.037 0.019 0.044 0.03 Treatment B Day Day Gain/Loss 0 7* 0.017 0.011 0.011 0.01 0.007 0.01 0.073 0.072 0.075 0.045 0.05 0.13 0.132 0.092 0.13 0.09 0.011 0.01 0.007 0.007 0.01 0.073 0.072 0.08 0.045 0.057 0.13 0.135 0.092 0.13 0.073 0.000 -0.001 -0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000

*If mealworm dies, leave cell blank.

Mealworm Experiment Comparison of Two Independent Sample Means Descriptive Statistics Treatment B 0.132 0.173 0.03 -0.046 0.566 15 mean= st. deviation= variance= min value= max value= sample size= 0.006 0.019 0.000 -0.003 0.073 15

Treatment A mean= st. deviation= variance= min value= max value= sample size=

Hypothesis Testing Null Hypothesis (H0): Mean A = Mean B Alternate Hypothesis (HA): Mean A Mean B T value= pooled var= df= p value= 2.81 0.0152 28 0.009

T TEST CONCLUSION: Reject the Null Hypothesis If p value is less than 0.05 Reject the Null Hypothesis Then the Alternate Hypothesis worked that means Substrate A was better than Substrate B A#B. If p value is greater than 0.05 Failure to Reject the Null Hypothesis. Null Hypothesis worked that mean we see no difference between Substrates A and B, A = B.