1. Results

3. Figure 1.

4. Biovolume of Food vs Thoracic Beats in D. magna One Way Analysis of VarianceThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:26:10 PM Group Name N MissingMeanStd DevSEM Mean TB High Micro40190.50039.23319.617 Mean TB Low Micro40220.20068.09134.045 Mean TB High Nano40147.60011.7585.879 Mean TB Low Nano40198.30019.7519.876 The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.140). Table 1 Though there is no significant difference between the Biovolume level of food and the number of thoracic beats in D. magna, there was a trend observed where the Daphnia performed a greater number of thoracic beats at the lower concentrations of food. Also, there was a trend where the number of thoracic beats was greater when in concentrations of Nanocloropsys.

6. Figure 2. Post Abdominal Rejection vs Food Concentration for D. magna

7. One Way Analysis of VarianceTuesday, February 07, 2006, 1:57:21 PM Data source: Nanno & MC Data in zool811 Mic vs TB Normality Test:Failed(P < 0.050) Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on RanksTuesday, February 07, 2006, 1:57:21 PM Data source: Nanno & MC Data in zool811 Mic vs TB GroupN Missing Median 25% 75% Micro PAR lo401.6671.1672.333 Micro PAR hi402.3331.3333.500 Nanno PAR lo401.0000.6671.833 Nanno PAR hi402.5001.3336.167 H = 2.789 with 3 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.425) The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.425)

8. Post Abdominal Rejection at Low and High Food Concentrations There is no significance between the post abdominal reflexes (PAR) at the food concentrations tested, however, one allegedly present trend was noted: there were fewer PAR’s in the low concentrated substrates.

9. One Way Analysis of VarianceThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:25:23 PM Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on RanksThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:25:23 PM Data source: Data 1 in ComparisonTBHIGHLOW GroupN Missing Median 25% 75% Mean TB High Micro40186.000160.200220.800 Mean TB Low Micro40222.000165.600274.800 Mean TB High Nano40150.000138.000157.200 Mean TB Low Nano40192.600186.600210.000 H The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.139)

10. t-testThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:23:48 PM Mann-Whitney Rank Sum TestThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:23:48 PM Data source: Data 1 in ComparisonTBHIGHLOW GroupN Missing Median 25% 75% Mean TB Low Micro40222.000165.600 274.800 Mean TB Low Nano40192.600186.600 210.000 T = 19.000 n(small)= 4 n(big)= 4 P(est.)= 0.885 P(exact)= 0.886 The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.886)

11. t-testThursday, February 02, 2006, 4:22:37 PM Group Name N MissingMeanStd DevSEM Mean TB High Micro40190.50039.233 19.617 Mean TB High Nano40147.60011.758 5.879 Difference42.900 t = 2.095 with 6 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.081) 95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -7.209 to 93.009 The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.081).