Saravia 1!

Andrs Saravia - A01023253

Ms. ODonnell
Biology
September 20, 2016
Biology Lab 3.2: Lincoln Index
Theoretical Introduction:
The Lincoln Index provides a way for scientists to be able to measure population sizes of
a specific species. It is based on a capture, mark and recapture method.
In paper, mark and recapture techniques usually involve sampling a population of animals
and after doing so, marking all of the individuals that where captured in a way that can be
recognized. The animals that where marked, are then released back into the population and they
are left to mingle for a prolonged period of time. The moment they have become mixed with the
population again, the population is resampled.
After all of this, the assumption is made that the the proportions of marked animals in the
second sample is the same as the proportion
of the marked animals to non-marked within
the whole population. Enough time has to be
allowed to elapse for complete mixing to
have occurred successfully.
Picture 1. Lincoln Index.

During the lab, our team will attempt to measure the changes in population sizes for a
sample population of beans by utilizing the Lincoln Index.

Saravia 2!

Variables
Independent

Dependent

Control

The beans

Amount of beans

Lincoln Index
Environment

Table 1. Variables present in the experiment.

Objective:

To get to know the accuracy of the Lincoln Index by utilizing it to measure change in the
size of a sample population.

Scientific Question:

Is the Lincoln Index useful when it comes to measuring a change in the size of a population
(dependent variable), in this case the population being represented with beans (independent
variable)?

Hypothesis:

If the beans (independent variable) are displaced and the amount of them (independent
variable) changes when being measured with the Lincoln Index, then this method does in
fact provide insight on changes in population sizes.

Saravia 3!
Materials:
1. Paper bags
2. Dry beans
3. Colored markers

Procedure:

Part A
1. Pour 150 beans onto the table.
2. Take a small handful of beans and place it on the side.
3. Add the remainder of dry beans to the habitat.
4. Remove a small handful of beans from the model habitat.
5. Mark the beans of the first population.
6. Place the beans from the first sample back into the habitat.
7. Remove another handful of beans randomly.
8. Count the total number of beans in the second capture.
9. Return the beans from the second capture to the habitat.
10. Repeat the steps until six trials are reached.

Picture 2. Beans.

Saravia 4!
Part B:
1. Remove 10 beans from the bag randomly.
2. Count 25 new unmarked beans.
3. Remove another handful of beans randomly.
4. Count the sample size.
5. Return the beans to their habitat.
6. Repeat the steps until six trials are reached.
7. Use the Lincoln Index to calculate population sizes in part A.

Saravia 5!
Data:
N1
# of marked
beans in
sample

N2
Size of
second
(recaptured)
sample

(dependent
variable)

(dependent
variable)

R
Number of
marked
beans
recaptured
in second
sample

P
Population
Estimate

Qualitative
Data

(dependent
variable)

Part A
Trial 1

32

34

120.89

Normal result

Trial 2

32

31

11

90.18

Possible outlier

Trial 3

32

36

10

115.20

Normal result

Trial 4

32

29

116.00

Normal result

Trial 5

32

32

113.78

Normal result

Trial 6

32

38

10

121.60

Normal result

Mean

112.94

Median

115.60

Random Error:
Present as
human error.

Average result

Range

30.71

Mode

No mode on the
estimates.

Standard
Deviation

Large range.

11.59

Large standard
deviation.

Part B
Trial 1

32

31

141.71

Possible outlier

Trial 2

32

35

124.44

Normal result

Trial 3

32

36

10

115.20

Normal result

Trial 4

32

31

124.00

Normal result

Trial 5

32

31

110.22

Normal result

Trial 6

32

31

11

90.18

Possible outlier

Mean

117.63

Median

119.60

Random Error:
Present as
human error.

Average result

Range

51.53

Mode

No mode on the
estimates.

Standard
Deviation

Large range.
17.21

Large standard
deviation.

Saravia 6!
Chi-squared
Test

T-Test

Average
estimated
population
size:

Actual
population
size

Part A

112.94

124

Part B

117.63

139

0.0259

This result
tells us that
the null
hypothesis
cannot be
accepted.

0.4093

This tells us
that our
results
mightve
happened by
chance.

Table 2. Results for Parts A and B with the population estimate already conducted. It is the table
where the results for both parts of the experiment are presented, the population estimated has
been calculated, and the data is evaluated with a chi-squared test and a t-test.

Saravia 7!

Part A

Part B

Population estimates for both parts of the experiment

Number of beans (dependent variable)

160

120

80

40

0
Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

Trial 5

Trial 6

Graph 1. Population estimates for both parts of the experiment. The estimates of population of
both parts of the experiment are presented through a 2D column graph, and the error bars
represent the standard deviation for each part of the experiment. Lines of best fit are provided to
better represent the data.

Saravia 8!

Part A

Part B

Population estimates for both parts of the experiment

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

Trial 5

Trial 6
0

40

80

120

160

Number of beans (dependent variable)

Graph 2. Population estimates for both parts of the experiment. The estimates of population of
both parts of the experiment are presented through a 2D bar graph, and the error bars represent
the standard deviation for each part of the experiment. Lines of best fit are provided to better
represent the data.

Saravia 9!
Analysis:
After observing the data table that I was able to create from processing the information
obtained in the experiment, several things can be noted.
In my table, which provides the results for parts
A and B with the population estimate already conducted,
it can be noted that the population of beans did in fact go
through changes.

Picture 3. Person counting beans.

The mean told us that the average value for part A was 112.94 and for part B it was
117.63, both seem like normal values and do not create any red flags. The mode couldn't be
calculated because in the predicted values, none of them where the same. The median told us in
both parts, a value which represented the middle ground of the data of the analysis. The standard
deviations where very large, which is normal due to the fact that the range was very big. The TTest that was conduced showed that our results happened by chance, and theres nothing wrong
with this because we where causing the population changes in the beans.. For our table, two
graphs where created to better represent the data in a more visual manner. The two graphs where
a column and a bar graph, and both of them help observe the data in a more clear and concise
manner due to the fact that it presents a more visual perspective on the data.
The variables in the experiment have a direct relationship with each other, due to the fact
that the change in the population of beans comes directly from the beans themselves.
Systematic errors where not present in the experiment because no actual equipment was
utilized. Random error was present as human error because we as humans counted and placed the

Saravia 1! 0
beans, but the influence of this kind of error was probably very low, because it was done with
precision and at a slow pace.

Conclusion:
After thoroughly analyzing the data that was collected, there are several conclusions that
can be made.
As stated in the scientific context provided in our introduction, The Lincoln Index
provides a way for scientists to be able to measure population sizes of a specific species. It is
based on a capture, mark and recapture method., this has been proven to be true in our
experiment because we have done exactly this.
The scientific question was answered with our data, because now I can state that the
Lincoln Index is in fact very useful to measure changes in population sizes. Through this our
teams hypothesis was proven, because the changes in the population of beans where in fact
observed after utilizing the Lincoln Index.
The trends that where seen in our data and graphs where that values stayed around 110.
The results observed in trial 2 of part A and trial 1 of part B could be considered as outliers,
because they are very far away from the other values of the experiment. Systematic errors in
their absence did not influence the results of the experiment, and because of this I dont think
that any kind of improvement is needed because its good enough the way it is.

Saravia 1! 1
Uncertainties where not calculated because measurements where not done in the
experiment, and the random error that was present as human error did not cause any uncertainties
that raise any red flags.
Percent error was calculated, for part A it was 8.9%, and for part B it was 15.3%. These
percent errors can be attributed to the accuracy of the Lincoln Index in comparison to just
counting the beans which can cause a lot of random errors.
Procedural and equipment weaknesses where very small due to the fact that almost no
equipment was utilized, and the procedure was very clear, and our team followed it at a patient
pace. All of this ended up making our data very accurate.
Both the results from trial 2 in part A and trial 1 in part B are outliers of the experiment
due to the fact that these values are very different from the other ones present in the experiment.
The appearance of these outliers can be attributed to errors in counting and many other random
errors.
The only source of improvement that I can think of would be to conduct more trials,
because the effect of this increase would be present in a much higher accuracy, and this higher
accuracy would decrease the size of the percent error. As I stated before, the procedure was made
very well, and done in an excellent manner, so reducing procedural errors is not something that
really matters if this experiment where to be conducted again.
In the future I would really enjoy to conduct an experiment similar to this one but instead
of beans we could utilize actual animals, this would be very helpful in aiding us in understanding
the ecology topics and it would also be very fun.

Saravia 1! 2
Bibliography:
The Lincoln Index. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016,
from http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/lincoln.htm