Login
Copyright (c) 2014 by SJCU Conditions of Use    Privacy Policy Return to Blogmeister
SJCU -- Blogmeister

Sjcu

R - Z 2011-2012

The students' blogs have been transferred to 8th grade.

by SJCU

teacher: Rye 8th Team

Class Assignments
Blog Entries

          My hypothesis for my roadkill project was both wrong and right. I said that the numbers of roadkill would decrease over the years but really the numbers were pretty random. Overall they did decrease but not rapidly, it went up and down like a roller coaster. Over the ten years though there’s been less roadkill, the first recorded roadkill year was all the way at 69 but now for 2008 it’s only at 46. I thought the numbers of roadkill would decrease because I thought the animal population would go down because of construction and hunting. For the most part Rye and New Castle have been environmentally friendly but there are still hunters. I think some animals either left or died over the years because there seems to be a drop in population. There’s also another reason that there’s less roadkill, people are starting to care. There are precautions of using cell phones in the car because it makes the reaction time slower so people will be able to see animals before they hit them. So in the end, I think my hypothesis was pretty accurate.


My results for the roadkill graph were not really surprising. The first year I put down on my data (1999) it was really high, it was at 69 then it dropped all the way to 38 the next year (2000). The results were pretty much like a roller coaster, they kept going up and down but not drastically, the only big drop was at the beginning. There was a pretty big number of roadkill in 2004 though, 63, in 2003 it was 45. I think the data is like this because roadkill is for the most part pretty random. I think over the years animals have gotten a little bit smarter because their kind keeps being run over by cars. I also think that if there’s a big number of roadkill in a year, then there’s a big number of animal population. It would seem that in 1998 (when we were more environmentally friendly than today) there was the most roadkill which would make sense.

I suppose that the recorded data makes sense because the population of animals over the years has changed so that the number of roadkill would change too, if the animal population was high, so was the roadkill that year. I don’t think that there were any or very few errors in this project, I got my information from [LINK] and my teacher made and edited it. I think that the surroundings could have had an effect on my hypothesis; I think they aided it because I said that the number of roadkill would decrease. The surroundings would help my hypothesis because they would help the animals, if it was a narrow road they could get to the other side quicker, if the surroundings didn’t look like the animal, the driver would be able to see the animal and have time to react. I would say that the variable that most affected my research though was population, if there aren’t many animals, then there isn’t going to be a lot of roadkill. Those are the two biggest variables in my opinion.

Next time I really don’t think I’d change my project that much. I think I would probably take the data from more years like from 2009 to 1995 or so. Overall I think I did pretty well in this project, I wouldn’t change my source and I would make a new topic because I think the topic I have now is pretty informative.

Article posted May 22, 2009 at 07:55 AM • comment • Reads 224 • see all articles

Login
Copyright (c) 2014 by SJCU Conditions of Use    Privacy Policy Return to Blogmeister