124 resultados para AOB
Resumo:
This data set contains aboveground plant biomass in 2004 (Sown plant community, Weed plant community, Dead plant material, and Unidentified plant material; all measured in biomass as dry weight) of the monoculture plots of a large grassland biodiversity experiment (the Jena Experiment). In the monoculture plots the biomass of the sown plant community contains only a single species per plot and this species is a different one for each plot. Which species has been sown in which plot is stated in the plot information table for monocultures (see further details below). The monoculture plots of 3.5 x 3.5 m were established for all of the 60 plant species of the Jena Experiment species pool with two replicates per species. These 60 species comprising the species pool of the Jena Experiment belong to four functional groups (grasses, legumes, tall and small herbs). Plots were sown in May 2002 and are since maintained by bi-annual weeding and mowing. Aboveground plant biomass was harvested twice in 2004 just prior to mowing (during peak standing biomass in early June and in late August) on all experimental plots of the monocultures. This was done by clipping the vegetation at 3 cm above ground in 2 rectangles of 0.2 x 0.5 m per plot. The location of these rectangles was assigned prior to each harvest by random selection of coordinates within the core area of the plots (i.e. excluding an outer edge of 0.5 m). The positions of the rectangles within plots were identical for all plots. The harvested biomass was sorted into categories: sown plant species, weed plant species (species not sown at the particular plot), detached dead plant material (i.e., dead plant material in the data file), and remaining plant material that could not be assigned to any category (i.e., unidentified plant material in the data file). All biomass was dried to constant weight (70°C, >= 48 h) and weighed. The data for individual subsamples (i.e. rectangles) and the mean over samples for all biomass measures are given.
Resumo:
The angle concept is a multifaceted concept having static and dynamic definitions. The static definition of the angle refers to “the space between two rays” or “the intersection of two rays at the same end point” (Mitchelmore & White, 1998), whereas the dynamic definition of the angle concept highlights that the size of angle is the amount of rotation in direction (Fyhn, 2006). Since both definitions represent two diverse situations and have unique limitations (Henderson & Taimina, 2005), students may hold misconceptions about the angle concept. In this regard, the aim of this research was to explore high achievers’ knowledge regarding the definition of the angle concept as well as to investigate their erroneous answers on the angle concept.
104 grade 6 students drawn from four well-established elementary schools of Yozgat, Turkey were participated in this research. All participants were selected via a purposive sampling method and their mathematics grades were 4 or 5 out of 5, and. Data were collected through four questions prepared by considering the learning competencies set out in the grade 6 curriculum in Turkey and the findings of previous studies whose purposes were to identify students’ misconceptions of the angle concept. The findings were analyzed by two researchers, and their inter-rater agreement was calculated as 0.91, or almost perfect. Thereafter, coding discrepancies were resolved, and consensus was established.
The angle concept is a multifaceted concept having static and dynamic definitions.The static definition of the angle refers to “the space between two rays” or“the intersection of two rays at the same end point” (Mitchelmore & White, 1998), whereas the dynamicdefinition of the angle concept highlights that the size of angle is the amountof rotation in direction (Fyhn, 2006). Since both definitionsrepresent two diverse situations and have unique limitations (Henderson & Taimina, 2005), students may holdmisconceptions about the angle concept. In this regard, the aim of thisresearch was to explore high achievers’ knowledge regarding the definition ofthe angle concept as well as to investigate their erroneous answers on theangle concept.
104grade 6 students drawn from four well-established elementary schools of Yozgat,Turkey were participated in this research. All participants were selected via a purposive sampling method and their mathematics grades were 4 or 5 out of 5,and. Data were collected through four questions prepared by considering the learning competencies set out in the grade 6 curriculum in Turkey and the findings of previous studies whose purposes were to identify students’ misconceptions of the angle concept. The findings were analyzed by two researchers, and their inter-rater agreement was calculated as 0.91, or almost perfect. Thereafter, coding discrepancies were resolved, and consensus was established.
In the first question, students were asked to answer a multiple choice questions consisting of two statics definitions and one dynamic definition of the angle concept. Only 38 of 104 students were able to recognize these three definitions. Likewise, Mitchelmore and White (1998) investigated that less than10% of grade 4 students knew the dynamic definition of the angle concept. Additionally,the purpose of the second question was to figure out how well students could recognize 0-degree angle. We found that 49 of 104 students were unable to recognize MXW as an angle. While 6 students indicated that the size of MXW is0, other 6 students revealed that the size of MXW is 360. Therefore, 12 of 104students correctly answered this questions. On the other hand, 28 of 104students recognized the MXW angle as 180-degree angle. This finding demonstrated that these students have difficulties in naming the angles.Moreover, the third question consisted of three concentric circles with center O and two radiuses of the outer circle, and the intersection of the radiuses with these circles were named. Then, students were asked to compare the size of AOB, GOD and EOF angles. Only 36 of 104 students answered correctly by indicating that all three angles are equal, whereas 68 of 104 students incorrectly responded this question by revealing AOB<GOD< EOF. These students erroneously thought the size of the angle is related to either the size of the arc marking the angle or the area between the arms of the angle and the arc marking angle. These two erroneous strategies for determining the size of angles have been found by a few studies (Clausen-May,2008; Devichi & Munier, 2013; Kim & Lee, 2014; Mithcelmore, 1998;Wilson & Adams, 1992). The last question, whose aim was to determine how well students can adapt theangle concept to real life, consisted of an observer and a barrier, and students were asked to color the hidden area behind the barrier. Only 2 of 104students correctly responded this question, whereas 19 of 104 students drew rays from the observer to both sides of the barrier, and colored the area covered by the rays, the observer and barrier. While 35 of 104 students just colored behind the barrier without using any strategies, 33 of 104 students constructed two perpendicular lines at the both end of the barrier, and colored behind the barrier. Similarly, Munier, Devinci and Merle (2008) found that this incorrect strategy was used by 27% of students.
Consequently, we found that although the participants in this study were high achievers, they still held several misconceptions on the angle concept and had difficulties in adapting the angle concept to real life.
Keywords: the angle concept;misconceptions; erroneous answers; high achievers
ReferencesClausen-May, T. (2008). AnotherAngle on Angles. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(1),4–8.
Devichi, C., & Munier, V.(2013). About the concept of angle in elementary school: Misconceptions andteaching sequences. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(1),1–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.10.001
Fyhn, A. B. (2006). A climbinggirl’s reflections about angles. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(2),91–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.004
Henderson, D. W., & Taimina,D. (2005). Experiencing geometry: Euclidean and non-Euclidean with history(3rd ed.). New York, USA: Prentice Hall.
Kim, O.-K., & Lee, J. H.(2014). Representations of Angle and Lesson Organization in Korean and AmericanElementary Mathematics Curriculum Programs. KAERA Research Forum, 1(3),28–37.
Mitchelmore, M. C., & White,P. (1998). Development of angle concepts: A framework for research. MathematicsEducation Research Journal, 10(3), 4–27.
Mithcelmore, M. C. (1998). Youngstudents’ concepts of turning and angle. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3),265–284.
Munier, V., Devichi, C., &Merle, H. (2008). A Physical Situation as a Way to Teach Angle. TeachingChildren Mathematics, 14(7), 402–407.
Wilson, P. S., & Adams, V.M. (1992). A Dynamic Way to Teach Angle and Angle Measure. ArithmeticTeacher, 39(5), 6–13.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Silicon has been shown to enhance the resistance of plants to fungal and bacterial pathogens. Here, the effect of potassium silicate was assessed on two cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars subsequently inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum (Fov). Sicot 189 is moderately resistant whilst Sicot F-1 is the second most resistant commercial cultivar presently available in Australia. METHODS: Transmission and light microscopy were used to compare cellular modifications in root cells after these different treatments. The accumulation of phenolic compounds and lignin was measured. KEY RESULTS: Cellular alterations including the deposition of electron-dense material, degradation of fungal hyphae and occlusion of endodermal cells were more rapidly induced and more intense in endodermal and vascular regions of Sicot F-1 plants supplied with potassium silicate followed by inoculation with Fov than in similarly treated Sicot 189 plants or in silicate-treated plants of either cultivar not inoculated with Fov. Significantly more phenolic compounds were present at 7 d post-infection (dpi) in root extracts of Sicot F-1 plants treated with potassium silicate followed by inoculation with Fov compared with plants from all other treatments. The lignin concentration at 3 dpi in root material from Sicot F-1 treated with potassium silicate and inoculated with Fov was significantly higher than that from water-treated and inoculated plants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that silicon treatment can affect cellular defence responses in cotton roots subsequently inoculated with Fov, particularly in Sicot F-1, a cultivar with greater inherent resistance to this pathogen. This suggests that silicon may interact with or initiate defence pathways faster in this cultivar than in the less resistant cultivar.
Resumo:
Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Microbiana, 2016.
