LAB REPORT

WOODLIC
E

Daan Rijpkema
May 2009
T4Y - General Science
X Words

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Aim............................................................................................................................. 2
Hypothesis.................................................................................................................. 2
Materials..................................................................................................................... 3
Method....................................................................................................................... 3
Variables..................................................................................................................... 5
Observations and Results........................................................................................... 6
Conclusions................................................................................................................ 9
Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 9
Bibliography............................................................................................................. 10

AIM
In this lab, I will predict, perform and interpret the behaviour of woodlice. As
woodlice cannot talk or voice their reasoning, I will put them in a certain situation
using stimuli and see how they behave. The stimuli used are temperature, light
exposure and moisture conditions. By pitting 6 woodlice in a certain situation in
which the stimuli is presented in two conditions (i.e. using the light exposure stimuli
it would be light and dark) and seeing how they react over a certain time period. In
this experiment, I will note down the exact amount of woodlice at each side of the
testing perimeter (they are evenly distributed at the start of the experiment) and
see how they move and choose a side to stay at every 30 seconds for 2 minutes.
This can then be represented in graphical forms and used to draw conclusions on
the behaviour of woodlice and their logic. I executed this lab together with my lab
partner Sjors Mallon.

HYPOTHESIS
M OISTURE

AND LIGHT EXPOSURE

Woodlice will probably prefer dark and damp places, as they can be found in large
numbers in those areas. Woodlice need moisture because they breathe
through gills, just like fish (woodlice are partially amphibious), and so are usually
found in damp, dark places, such as under rocks and logs. They are usually
nocturnal1, feeding mostly on dead plant and tree matter. Woodlice then recycle the
material back into the soil. In artificial environments such as greenhouses where it
can be very moist, a group of woodlice may become overpopulated, which causes
damage to young plants in the woodlice wake. (Wiki) Because of this, the woodlice
will probably prefer moist and dark areas to reside in.
When animals or plants are nocturnal, it means that they sleep during the day and are
active during the night.
1

T EMPERATURE
Woodlice will prefer a regular environment above an extremely hot alternative
because their bodies are not adapted to extremes. In their damp habitats it is
probably an intermediate temperature. Also, as they are requiring water or moisture
to survive, hot conditions are not favourable as water will evaporate faster. Because
of this the woodlice will probably move to the room temperature areas.

C OMBINING
If multiple stimuli and conditions would be combined, this would yield a more
realistic testing environment. Exposing the woodlice to different temperatures while
testing their preferences in moisture gives an image how they would react in a
similar real-life situation. Contemplations on the behaviour pattern may vary: the
woodlice might get confused when exposed to a high temperature and create
anomaly results in their liking of the moisture conditions.
Most of these predictions are speculations, and only partially based on facts of the
body and lifestyle of the woodlice. This experiment will be a great way to test these
speculations and confirm them with arguments.

MATERIALS
I will be using the materials and apparatus below throughout this lab experiment. In
my method, I will show the setups required for each segment in a diagram.

6 woodlice.
3 beakers (measuring cylinders) with a 250 ml range.
A connected set of 2 Petri dishes.
Normal Petri dishes.
A square (10 cm2) black cloth.
A filter paper of average diameter.
A thermometer with Celsius scaling.
A stopwatch with at least 0,5 seconds accuracy
A rod or brush to keep the woodlice in the testing perimeter.
H2O (water) at around 40-50C.
H2O (water) at 21C (room temperature).
A metal lattice (sized 15 cm by 8 cm) with a grate to make sure air can pass
through it.

METHOD
I will plan my experiment and methods used in the process of each of the three
smaller experiments. This is important in the lab, because there are different stimuli
and thus different values of data to be gathered. See each individual segment in the
section Observations and Results for the respective results.

E XPERIMENT 1 - T EMPERATURE
C HANGES
1)

Prepare two beakers, one filled with

200 ml of hot water (around 40-50C), the
other with the same amount of room
temperature water (21C). Make sure you
know which beaker is which.
2)
Put the combination of Petri dishes
(the testing perimeter) on top of that.
4

3)

Gently brush the woodlice into the testing perimeter, with three on each
side.

4)
5)

Put the lattice on top of the dishes, making sure there is no opening.
Record the behaviour of the woodlice over 2 minutes, with intervals of 30
seconds. Make sure no woodlice die,
Figure 1 - Experimenting with
freeze or get fried in the given time.
temperature using, from top to bottom,
6)
After 2 or so minutes, remove the
a lattice, a double Petri dish with 6
woodlice and two beakers with set
dishes from the beakers and gently put
the woodlice back into their habitat or container.
7)
Rinse and repeat if time permits.

E XPERIMENT 2 - L IGHT E XPOSURE

1)

2)
3)
4)
5)

6)

7)

Prepare the combination Petri dish

(the testing perimeter). Make sure it has not
been heated recently and is of a constant
temperature.
Gently brush the woodlice into the
testing perimeter, with three on each side.
Put the lattice on top of the dishes,
making sure there is no opening.
Put the piece of black cloth on one half of the lattice, thus covering one of
the two Petri dishes.
Record the behaviour of the woodlice over 2 minutes, with intervals of 30
seconds. Be sure to note the amount of woodlice on the light section. The
remainder will be staying in the dark area.
After 2 or so minutes, remove the cloth
and lattice and gently put the woodlice back
into their habitat or container.
Figure 2 - Experimenting using
Rinse and repeat if time permits.
light changes using: A - a piece of
black cloth. B - a lattice. C - a
double Petri dish with 6 woodlice.

E XPERIMENT 3 - M OISTURE C ONDITIONS

1)

2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Prepare a normal Petri dish. Make sure it

has not been heated recently and is of a
constant temperature.
Get the filter paper and shorten its
diameter by 5-10 mm.
Use a few drops of water (21C room temperature) to cover one half of the
filter paper.
Put the filter paper in the Petri dish (the testing perimeter).
Gently brush the woodlice into the testing perimeter.
Put the lattice on top of the dish, making sure there is no opening.
Record the behaviour of the woodlice over 2 minutes, with intervals of 30
seconds.
After 2 or so minutes, remove the lattice
Figure 3 - Experimenting using
and gently put the woodlice back into their
moisture conditions using: A a lattice. B - a Petri dish. C - a
habitat or container.
filter paper with one half moist
and the other dry.

9)

Rinse and repeat if time permits.

E XPERIMENT 4 - C OMBINING M OISTURE

T EMPERATURE

AND

1)

Prepare one beaker, filled with 200 ml of

hot water (around 50C).
2)
Put the single Petri dish (the testing
perimeter) on top. Get the filter paper and
shorten its diameter by 5-10 mm.
3)
Use a few drops of water (21C room
temperature) to cover one half of the filter
paper.
4)
Put the filter paper in the testing
perimeter.
5)
Gently brush the woodlice into the testing
perimeter.
6)
Put the lattice on top of the testing perimeter, making sure there is no
opening.
7)
Record the behaviour of the woodlice over 2 minutes, with intervals of 30
seconds. Make sure no woodlice die in the allocated time.
8)
After 2 or so minutes, remove the testing
Figure 4 - Experimenting using a
perimeter from the beakers.
combination of two variables
9)
Repeat the experiment as a whole while (moisture and temperature) using:
A - a lattice. B - a Petri dish. C - a
changing the hot beaker water with room
filter paper with one half moist and
temperature (21C) water. Make sure both the the other dry. D - a beaker with 200
ml of water of either room
woodlice and the testing perimeter dish is
temperature or hot water.
ready for the change in temperature (dont change it right away, to avoid killing
the woodlice).
10)
Gently put the woodlice back into their habitat or container.
11)
Rinse and repeat the experiment with both temperatures if time permits.

VARIABLES
My experiments are affected by various variables that I need to control and observe
carefully to keep my results accurate, valuable and meaningful.

C ONTROLLED V ARIABLES

W HAT

DO

KEEP CONSTANT ?

The amount of woodlice used.

The size (in cm2) and base temperature (in C) of the Petri dishes.
The time (in minutes) the behaviour is being recorded.
The initial distribution of the woodlice (3 on each side)
In experiment 1, the temperature (in C) of the water in each beaker.
In experiment 2, the amount of light coming through the dark section
(cloth should cover it during the whole procedure).
In experiment 3, the amount of water used (in ml) on the moist side of
the filter paper and the diameter of the filter paper (in mm).
7

In experiment 4, both the temperature (in C) of the water in each

beaker and the filter paper diameter (in mm) and moisture (in ml).

These variables should be controlled because if one of these variables wouldnt be

controlled it would severely affect and alter the experiments outcome. For
example: If the temperature in experiment 1 or 4 would change in the recording
period, the woodlice might be disturbed and adapt their pattern to give incorrect
results. Another example is the variation in moisture of the filter paper in
experiment 3 or 4. If the filter paper would be too dry, it will have a lesser effect on
the woodlice, thus altering the results.
One might say that the stimuli are changed each experiment and that they should
thus be the independent variable, but actually each experiment is an individual
procedure and thus it requires its own set of variables. Next to that time is vital to
the pattern of behaviour, because there is no behaviour at a given moment, only
over a certain period of time.

I NDEPENDENT V ARIABLE
RESULTS ?

W HAT

DO

MODIFY TO ACHIEVE MY

The time the woodlice are recorded and behave in certain patterns (in
seconds)

This is the variable which I use to investigate the behaviour of the woodlice. By
recording the change in locations on a certain time period, it is possible to see how
they react to their conditions. In a bar graph, the time of recording in intervals of 30
seconds would be shown in seconds on the X-axis. This is the variable which will
allow me to gather my results, which I can use to interpret and conclude the
experiment.

D EPENDENT V ARIABLE

W HAT

DO

OBSERVE AND FIND OUT ?

The behaviour of the woodlice. In all experiments, this means the

distribution of woodlice (in amounts and percentages). In other words: the
amount of woodlice that move to one of the two sections in the testing
perimeter in the time period.

This is the variable I am testing. I am

trying to find the behaviour of woodlice
over time. In every experiment, the
initial distribution over the testing
perimeter will be 50%-50% (3 on each
half, 6 in total). By measuring the
change in location of the woodlice one
can see what they prefer, and thus how
woodlice react if they have the option
between two conditions (i.e. hot or
average/normal, light or dark, moist or
8

dry). In a bar graph, the behaviour of the woodlice would be shown in percentages
on each side on the Y-axis.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Here I will note down all my results and observations and process this data into a
respective table and graph at each experiment. I can then use these figures in my
interpretation of the results.

E XPERIMENT 1 - T EMPERATURE C HANGES

Time
(sec)

0,5
sec
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00

Distribution of
woodlice in amounts
(also in % of total)
Hot
Normal
water
water
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)

Table 1 (above) and Figure 5 (right) - The table and diagram showing the results of
experiment 1, where the temperature stimuli was applied.

O BSERVATIONS
Right from the start there was movement. After 30 seconds most of the woodlice
had already moved to the average temperature area. The woodlice seemed to
prefer this, probably because they could die or get damaged when exposed to
extreme heat. In their reflex (possibly even automatically), they moved towards the
somewhat more standard area with room temperature. Those that stayed in the
warm Petri dish seemed to doze off
initially, which could be an effect to
the surprise heat exposure. As soon
as they wake and get to the normal
area, they become active and quicker
again.

E XPERIMENT 2 - L IGHT
EXPOSURE

Time
(sec)
0,5
sec
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00

Distribution of
woodlice in amounts
(also in % of total)
Light
Dark
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (67%)
1 (17%)
5 (83%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)

Table 2 (above) and Figure 6 (right) - The table and diagram showing the results of
experiment 2, where the light exposure stimuli was applied.

O BSERVATIONS
9

At first, there was little movement. After about a minute or so they seemed to
wake up and slowly moved towards the darker section of the testing perimeter. In
the end all of them moved to the dark, whilst there was some hesitation in the first
minute. One or two woodlouse would walk to and fro before choosing a side. The
experiment was repeated once as there was some inconsistency in the first try, and
an accurate merging of the data is
the result.

E XPERIMENT 3 - M OISTURE
C ONDITIONS
Time
(sec)
0,5
sec
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00

Distribution of
woodlice in amounts
(also in % of total)
Moist
Dry
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
1 (17%)
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
5 (83%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)

Table 3 (above) and Figure 7 (right) - The

table and diagram showing the results of
experiment 3, where the moisture stimuli was applied.

O BSERVATIONS
Right after the release of the woodlice, most of the creatures started to stroll
around, while not picking any side. Over the course of a minute, however, they did
manage to find a spot and in the end all went to the dry area. This is rather odd, as I
predicted that woodlice would prefer the moist area. Nonetheless, after a few
minutes all woodlice found their spot. After retrying the experiment with the same
apparatus, similar results were found and the above table was computed.

E XPERIMENT 4 - C OMBINING
M OISTURE AND
T EMPERATURE
On room temperature water
(21C)
Time
(sec)
0,5
sec
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00

Distribution of
woodlice in amounts
(also in % of total)
Moist
Dry
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (67%)
2 (33%)
4 (67%)
2 (33%)
4 (67%)

Table 4 (above) and Figure 8 (right) The table and diagram showing the
results of experiment 4, where the
moisture stimuli was applied
10

together with temperature changes. This part of the experiment was performed with room
temperature water.

On hot water (40-50C)

Time
(sec)
0,5
sec
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00

Distribution of
woodlice in amounts
(also in % of total)
Moist
Dry
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)

Table 5 (above) and Figure 9 (right) The table and diagram showing the
results of experiment 4, where the
moisture stimuli was applied
together with temperature changes.
This part of the experiment was
performed with hot water.

These results give a clear image

how the woodlice react on
moisture conditions whilst being exposed to a high or medium temperature. The
results are quite notably. In a medium, room temperature situation all woodlice
appear to stay mixed and walk around a lot. This leads to a rather fairly distributed
situation. However, when the woodlice are heated to a high level, they move as
quickly as they can towards the moist area, which probably provides the most
relieve in that situation.

CONCLUSIONS
Looking at my results, I could see that my hypothesis was mainly correct. All the
results comply with my predictions except for the results in experiment 3 using only
the moisture stimuli. In a case of moist and dry conditions, it would be much more
favourable for the woodlice to stay at the moist areas. These anomalies are thus
best explained as a faulty setup with the filter paper. I probably did not use enough
(or too much) water on the filter paper to respectively make them ignore and not
see the difference or become confused and avoid the large amount of water. A
repetition of the same experiment using the same apparatus did not help, again
probably because of an unrestrained filter paper setup error.
Nonetheless, all other results match and particularly the combined experiment
gives some valuable results. The behaviour of the woodlice showed that they prefer
darkness over light and normal temperatures over extreme ones. With some further
research I found that woodlice do most of their actions to prevent themselves from
drying out (also called preventing dehydration). This explains why most of the
woodlice moved towards the dark. In sunlight they have higher risk for drying out.
Also the higher temperatures cause water to evaporate at a quicker rate, which
11

they are thus naturally trying to avoid. Although the woodlice moved towards the
predicted sections most of the time, there was some strolling around at times.
Further research showed that woodlice have the habit of walking around until their
body comes in contact with another object or woodlice. This also explains why all
the woodlice bumped on each other a lot of times and walked over/under each
other. (Background)
So, even though I made a set of errors compromising a part of my results, I can still
safely say that the behaviour of woodlice can be predicted and tested using such
stimuli. Using natural conditions and predicted reflexes I was able to quite
accurately predict what behaviour the woodlice would apply in each situation. Their
basic logic is to survive, which, because of their body and naturally inherited
reflexes, they could instantly put into action.

EVALUATION
Over the whole, this experiment went rather well except for the setbacks that were
experienced with experiment 3, where all results were unexpected and probably
wrong. This caused me to doubt if I was correct in my predictions and speculations
and caused some tension. As the repetition did not change the results I tried to seek
alternatives and found a realistic scenario in which the setup was not correct. In a
future experiment, I would thus need to research moisture levels in natural
environments before performing this experiment to best simulate the conditions
and avoid any anomaly incidents like this.
Still, over the rest of the experiment (especially the last combined experiment), the
process was smooth and I made little mistakes. I had some problems with each
setup structure and its respective rules and specific observations, but after the first
experiment was conducted the rest came along smoothly.
Using the metal lattice did not always go smoothly and sometimes plainly failed. It
was hard to observe the woodlice through the thick grate and the woodlice tend to
escape through small gaps on the frames side. This was quite a pain but
fortunately did not affect any of the results.
In the time frame, I managed to finish all planned experiments with extra time for
some repetition to increase accuracy and the validity of my results. Still, with more
time I could have repeated more (like with experiment 3 using a fresh new setup to
see what the results wouldve been) experiments and thus gained more results. Also
this could have yielded more experiments to test more predictions and thus better
augment my conclusion. In addition, if I would have taken more time to research
beforehand and taken a more critical review of the variables, I could have spotted
problems and ask myself questions that have now become problems that cannot be
avoided.
Next to that, some improvements to this project are to have extreme care with the
variables. Especially with controlled variables like the moisture levels on the filter
paper that ruined part of this experiment. The variables should not be taken lightly
and thoroughly thought out and researched (if necessary) before conducting any
experiment. My results show that a single error can already influence my results a
12

great deal. This lab thus learned me to better respect and more elaborately devise
the variables: I will be able to better plan future projects.
Another improvement (or extension of this lab) would be to investigate if woodlice
actually prefer a natural forest (leaves and dead plant matter as food) or another
natural situation with for example open fields. Using new stimuli such as food
available and object density (i.e. much grass or little mud) I can then find extensive
new behaviour patterns and draw new conclusions from that. Also, as I have now
learned, I will be able to achieve much more with more careful planning and
investigation beforehand. An example improvement like the aforementioned would
be very possible in that case.
Of course, adding more of the materials (around 12 or more woodlice) would
increase the validity of my results and give a better image of their behaviour, but it
would also make it harder to properly observe the distribution and might cause
incidents in which some of the woodlice might fall (for the cause of science, of
course).
Ultimately, I think that the results are acceptable and do represent a realistically
simulated natural environment for woodlice. Especially with the combined
experiment I managed to get two variables to coincide and yield a more pragmatic
result. In the event of better preparation and better time management, more
variables could have been added and thus a higher standard of realism could have
been reached. This would have yielded better answers and arguments to make or
break my predictions and forge my conclusions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Front page picture, Insect: Woodlice (11 June 2008), retrieved 12 May 2009, URL
<http:// www.flickr.com/photos/26764368@N07/2571252582/>
Wikipedia, Woodlouse (20 May 2009), retrieved 25 May 2009, URL
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Woodlouse >
Background, Woodlice Online (1997), retrieved 25 May 2009, URL
<http://www.geocities.com/ ~gregmck/woodlice/wlicebak.htm>

13