The first sentence: “A surprising new study released Monday by UCLA’s Institute For Child Development revealed that human babies, long thought by psychologists to be highly inquisitive and adaptable, are actually extraordinarily stupid.” While this is clearly a humorous article (which definitely should NOT be taken seriously), it does create a perfect opportunity to respond with good evidence of how infants are surprisingly intelligent.
Based on what you learned in this unit and the e-book, react to this claim.
In what ways are infants, and young children, surprisingly smart?
What are their limitations and what are important cognitive developmental milestones in the first few years of life?
The Onion ran a satirical article
Many people often make assumptions about what babies are capable of understanding. For instance, some mistakenly think children are solely concrete thinkers. However, infants and young children are able to think abstractly. As infants transition to the toddler years, they are able to distinguish trusted sources of information without eye contact and gesturing. They are able to understand implicit pedagogical guides in speech or in other words learn from adults who are trying to teach them something. In the first years, babies learn to focus their vision, reach out, explore, and learn about the things that are around them. Cognitive, or brain development means the learning process of memory, language, thinking, and reasoning.
6 had a more diverse Mix treatment than Strip 1 (as indicated in table 1). Effects of this more diverse grass-clover mixture are assumed to be negligible, for the difference between Mix and No-mix was insignificant and the sown species mixture of strip 6 had less time to establish than strip 1.
Total nematodes
The data on total nematode abundance obtained from counting and performing a Q-PCR differed with approximately a factor 10, the question rises whether both data-sets are representing reality. In this study, the data obtained from counting nematodes under the microscope do most likely represent reality better than data obtained from the Q-PCR. This is because less errors could be made in the counting method. The samples were well shaken while 5 mL suspension was taken. Possible explanations for the large difference in nematode numbers between the two quantification methods, are pipetting errors during dilution of samples, or a possible lack of shaking of PCR samples during pipetting. In both scenario’s, less nematodes are possibly transferred into the final Q-PCR tubes than assumed. Although the data cannot represent reality quantitatively, the data within a method can be used as relative values, for the samples are all treated in the same way.
As stated in the results, nematode abundances in the 2 year old grass-clover mixture were shown to be higher than in the one year old mixture. This was significant in both count data and Q-PCR data.
Organic matter content
The field is relatively heterogeneous considering organic matter (OM) content. Expected was to find a relation between OM and fungivorous nematode abundances [15]. However, no correlation exists between Aphelenchoididae or total nematode abundance and organic matter content, according to the results. Possible explanations could be the influence of factors such as Mix/No-mix treatment, water availability or compaction of the soil.
Conclusions
The most important finding is the increase of total nematode abundance in