Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Starvation and CO2 output

  1. Feb 26, 2005 #1


    User Avatar

    I performed a cricket lab on three groups of crickets: fully fed, starved for 48 hrs, starved for 96 hours to see how these conditions would affect their carbon dioxide ouput..
    The results attained were: 19 (Fed), 22 (48 hrs) and 17.5 (96 hrs) <--measured in μl/min of carbon dioxide
    the problem with this data is that im not sure where to start since there is no clear trend
    this is what i have so far:
    -19 would be the relatively normal CO2 ouput
    -metabolic rate decreases when the crickets are starved
    -metabolic rate affects carbon dioxide output(?) - but how and why?? :confused:

    thanks for your help :smile:
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know nothing about cricket biology, but in humans we have several types of metabolics depending on the source of energy. Fats in humans start to be used as a primary energy source approximately 24 hours (wild guess) after the last meal. You could argue that you are observing such switch points.
  4. Feb 27, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unfortunately, with only 3 time points that don't show a clear trend, there isn't much you can conclude, because there are two possible interpretations (assuming 22 is even significantly different from 19...have you done any statistical analysis of the results?):

    1) There is a time effect, like Monique suggested, that you get an initial decrease, then a switch in metabolism with a subsequent increase.

    2) There is no effect of starvation on CO2 output.

    Replication of the trend along with additional intermediate time points would be necessary before you could draw either conclusion.
  5. Feb 27, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    i checked my results again and the third mean value was found to be 7.5 not 17.5!

    the fed vs. 48 hrs is non-significant and the fed vs. 96hrs is significant..
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook