In our research project, we analyzed the correlation between body weight of a spider and the thickness of its web. We were only able to obtain 3 spider webs from our population of six spiders. To get a fuller picture of weight vs thickness, we also compared our results to the results of another study which examined the same hypothesis, but had a greater sample size and used multiple species whereas we used one species. Our results of the average web thicknesses of each spider plotted against their weight were a negative nonlinear correlation. The results of the other study showed no correlation. Our results probably did not show the full picture of reality. We only had a sample size of three, which is a very small number. Also, although the average widths plotted against the weights showed a negative correlation, there was a high standard deviation in the individual measurements, so the average probably does not mean that much. Spider number 2 that we measured had a weight that was in the middle of spider 1 and 3, as well as an “average” width that was in between 1 and 3. However, as our graph shows, looking at the individual data points spider number 2 actually had both the highest and the lowest observed single strand diameter, with individual points scattered on both the very high and the very low points of the plot. Thus, the average is not a very effective measurement. The spider’s body weight is constant, yet its strands have a large variation. It is likely that in reality, spider body weight does not play a role in determining web thickness, but rather other factors, such as the type of the web itself and its purpose.
Recent comments