kiwik Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I did the first chapter of the first Mr Q science with my sons (3 and 5) the other day. They loved it but now everything has to be classified. I have no trouble with something dead still being biotic and I can follow crude oil being biotic but surely being made of wood doesn't make my house biotic? What about a wooden spoon? Is soup biotic or just the vegetables in it or does the water component take precedence? Aaagh why did I start this? The rest of the unit seems simple though. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 :bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwik Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Um, I'm not clear on what you are asking. I did a PhD on the effect of Biotic and Abiotic factors on the population of mice, so I definitely know what you are talking about but I don't understand your question. I think of biotic and abiotic factors *affecting* something. So biotic factors affected my mouse population size because individuals of the same species and different species competed for food, and predators ate the mice. Also, the tree produced nuts, but some years they had masting years, so the nuts were in huge abundance. Abiotic factors are droughts that would reduce the food, or the cold weather that would actually kill the mice. If you have a clear question, I would be happy to answer it. Ruth in NZ Edited September 21, 2012 by lewelma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 In Mr. Q's Life Science curriculum (free to download), he starts with a discussion of abiotic vs biotic things and asks the student to classify items around their environment. (http://www.eequalsmcq.com/download%20life%20science%20student%20by%20Sunit.htm.) It's the first lesson in unit 1. I think if you think too hard on it, you can start to skew abiotic vs biotic, as he defines them. To the OP, no the wood in your house or spoon, as he prescribes, is not biotic. There's the four rules he mentions that define an organism as alive. If an item doesn't agree with those rules (as in, I don't think your wooden spoons breath or grow even though the tree they came from once did - and if they do, w00t for a science discovery :lol:), then that item is abiotic. At least, that's how I understood it. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) In summary: abiotic: The environment (weather, soil content, pollution, etc) biotic: intraspecific competition (same species) interspecific competition (different species) predation food resources (that are alive like plants or other animals) If you are talking about termites living in your house: The wood your house is made of is an abiotic factor affecting the termites Humidity or poison are also abiotic factors. Fungus, ants, etc are biotic factors competing for food The biotic factors have to have a feedback loop. A house is made of dead, treated wood which does not reproduce. It has an abiotic affect on termites. If you are talking about a live tree in the forest as food then it is a biotic factor. Edited September 21, 2012 by lewelma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwik Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Thanks, I was ok until I started thinking about classifying dead things and reading definitions that said a dead rotting tree was still biotic and so was oil because it was composed of dead organisms. I can do physics, inorganic chem, maths etc but biological sciences. I think perhaps I should just take it at face value and move on - things that have been simplified are usually more confusing. Ruth in NZ - I find his use of the word factor a bit confusing - i was thinking of just deleting it. I think a stone is not biotic a tree is maybe all that is really required. Edited September 21, 2012 by kiwik addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuirkyKidAcademy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I had the same thoughts when we did that chapter. He wants us to classify everything around us as either biotic or abiotic.period. (At least that's how it came across to me.) It was only when I started poking around on the internet that I realized biotic/abiotic were FACTORS, not simple classifications. It was confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDays Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Oh dear... we were just about to get started on this. I am not really a science person and life science is my *least* comfortable piece... will this confuse him?? Is there a better way to describe biotic/abiotic FACTORS to him in a very simple manner?? (If you tell me all the above is a simple explanation, then perhaps I'm in trouble, LOL. :D ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmaNadine Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 What advantage do you get out of using the terms abiotic and biotic instead of living and non-living? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 What advantage do you get out of using the terms abiotic and biotic instead of living and non-living? because they are not the same. biotic materials for example are derived from living organisms, but do no longer have to be actually living - crude oil being a perfect example. Can't really call it "living". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmaNadine Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I'm just wondering if that level of specificity is needed for a three and five year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.