The Artemia franciscana can survive in extreme conditions of salinity, water depth, and temperature (Biology 108 laboratory manual, 2010), but do A. franciscana prefer these conditions or do they simply cope with their surroundings? This experiment explored the extent of the A. franciscanas preference towards three major stimuli: light, temperature, and acidity. A. franciscana are able to endure extreme temperature ranges from 6 ̊ C to 40 ̊ C, however since their optimal temperature for breeding is about room temperature it can be inferred that the A. franciscana will prefer this over other temperatures (Al Dhaheri and Drew, 2003). This is much the same in regards to acidity as Artemia franciscana, in general thrive in saline lakes, can survive pH ranges between 7 and 10 with 8 being ideal for cysts(eggs) to hatch (Al Dhaheri and Drew, 2003). Based on this fact alone the tested A. franciscana should show preference to higher pH levels. In nature A. franciscana feed by scraping food, such as algae, of rocks and can be classified as a bottom feeder; with this said, A. franciscana are usually located in shallow waters. In respect to the preference of light intensity, A. franciscana can be hypothesized to respond to light erratically (Fox, 2001; Al Dhaheri and Drew, 2003). Using these predictions, and the results of the experimentation on the A. franciscana and stimuli, we will be able to determine their preference towards light, temperature, and pH.
Materials & Methods
The procedure was simple as for each stimulus tested a metre length, clear, plastic tube, over a centimetre in diameter, and marked in quarters was filled with Artemia franciscana (Biology 108 laboratory manual, 2010). Then, following the Biology 108 lab manual (2010), each tube was affected by a stimulus; for light one end section of the tube was wrapped with black tape and the opposite end was isolated by a board and exposed to an intense light. The same process was carried over to the temperature using an infra-red lamp. The pH treatment was setup the same, however the opposite ends were injected with either an acidic solution or a basic one (Biology 108 laboratory manual, 2010). Along with these three tests an additional control tube was created with no influences on it. After the tubes were left for a period of time they were then clamped in quarters and the number of living A. franciscana in each was then counted and recorded (Biology 108 laboratory manual, 2010).
Starting with the control group (Table 1), the results are unexpectedly biased as one half contains 264 more A. franciscana than the other end. This directional skew rejects the null hypothesis that the control test should show an even distribution and that the results were not due to chance (X2= 129, df= 3, p< 0.05). Therefore comparison of the other treatments with this group is greatly limited.
The data from the light treatment (Table 1) reveals that of the 1,283 A. franciscana...