Predict connected effects of a disturbance
See this course’s project requirements
A food-web and carbon-cycle model explaining a fictional ecosystem disturbance, with a supported prediction and an alternative explanation.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- Classify organism roles and nonliving conditions.
- Draw all supplied food-to-eater and decomposer links.
- Separate carbon cycling from energy flow and calculate the supplied fraction.
- Classify interactions from both partners’ stated effects.
- Trace a disturbance with an alternative food path.
- Write a bounded explanation of the supplied counts and complete changed cases.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Method: applies the course-specific rules to the supplied cases with visible intermediate work.
- Accuracy: results agree with the stated facts, units, boundaries and independent checks.
- Reasoning: explains why the result follows and identifies a limitation or unresolved question.
- Transfer: completes changed cases and revises the final project when a relevant assumption changes.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Meadow M disturbance: grasshopper numbers fall sharply. Feeding links remain grass→grasshopper→frog→hawk and grass→rabbit→hawk. No disease, rainfall or migration data are provided. Hawks can still eat rabbits.
A web supports conditional predictions through direct and indirect paths. Fewer prey may reduce a predator’s food, while fewer grazers may reduce plant consumption. Other food sources and environmental changes can weaken or reverse a simple prediction. Explain a mechanism and its conditions rather than promising an exact population change.
Predict connected effects of a disturbance — worked practice
A web supports conditional predictions through direct and indirect paths. Fewer prey may reduce a predator’s food, while fewer grazers may reduce plant consumption. Other food sources and environmental changes can weaken or reverse a simple prediction. Explain a mechanism and its conditions rather than promising an exact population change.
Meadow M disturbance: grasshopper numbers fall sharply. Feeding links remain grass→grasshopper→frog→hawk and grass→rabbit→hawk. No disease, rainfall or migration data are provided. Hawks can still eat rabbits.
1. 1. Direct
Identify the frog’s changed food source.
You should see: Less grasshopper food is available to frogs in the supplied model.
2. 2. Indirect
Trace one possible consequence to hawks.
You should see: A frog decline could reduce one hawk food path, conditional on other factors.
3. 3. Alternative
Retain the independent rabbit path.
You should see: Rabbit food could buffer hawks; an exact hawk decline is not guaranteed.
4. 4. Test
Name additional records needed to assess the prediction.
You should see: Repeated frog, rabbit and hawk counts plus rainfall and feeding records would help compare explanations.
What to finish
A disturbance diagram with one conditional prediction and an alternative pathway.
Watch for this
Repeated connected population and condition records can assess whether the proposed mechanism fits over time; one label cannot test it.
How can I tell I understand it?
Update the directly affected path when a different prey group changes.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Web open/search showed the official page, its topic heading and relevant concept description. This is a content/source check, not a provider endorsement.
Access: Official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01; interactive tools and videos were not certified by retrieval.
Reuse: Original fictional teaching cases, calculations, questions and examples; link and short factual paraphrase only. No copied source exercises or illustrations.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Web open/search showed the official page, its topic heading and relevant concept description. This is a content/source check, not a provider endorsement.
Access: Official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01; interactive tools and videos were not certified by retrieval.
Reuse: Original fictional teaching cases, calculations, questions and examples; link and short factual paraphrase only. No copied source exercises or illustrations.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.