jnduggan's blog

The pictures themselves also differ from original to replicate.  Due to the quality of the pictures and lack of arrows on the environment picture of the replica, it is difficult to tell if the two spider webs are the same. The appearance of the stones relative to the spider web is different between the original and replicate in the close up picture.  In the environmental picture of the original figure, the curb and a blue building are visible in the background, but in the replica picture an orange building is visible and the curb is not. There is also a different number of posts on the fence visible in the replica vs. the original.

The pictures in the replica figure of the environment and close up have water on the stones and a relatively dark complexion, while the pictures of the environment and the spider web have a bright complexion and no water on the stones.  

The New York Times piece uses a large picture of a researcher scuba diving and touching a coral reef to further grab the readers’ attention. Just by looking at the photo the majority of readers can know generally something about what the article could be about. The next picture they used is an aerial view of the area damaged by bleaching. They also use a visual of an up and close bleached coral with a live marine species in front of it called a blenny. The image is very helpful for readers to understand the importance of the corals for other living organisms. The article lastly contains a photo of a sea turtle who has returned to the ruins of a bleaching event. Both of the last two images show how the life there is affected by the deaths of the environment.

            The Washington Posts' paper also uses an underwater photo of a coral reef in order to capture the reader’s attention. This photo is just of the corals themselves without a person involved in the photo. The article also uses a screenshot photo of a tweet made from one of the researchers of the study in order to show the reader the real-time results researcher Hughes is finding. This gives the reader more contexts and reassures the reader that the author has done his homework on the topic and research as opposed to just gathering the information from the article.  The screenshot contains a graph showing the differences in the number of corals bleached in different sectors that are being examined.  The Washington Post also includes another visual aid in the form of a video. Similar to the Arial view photo in the New York Times article, the video shows the aftermath of the 2016 bleaching event in order for the readers to see the actual damage that has been caused.

To find the spiderweb, I left class on Friday afternoon around 4pm and took a left out of the doorway, walked to the end of the hall, and took another left towards the stairs. Friday was a sunny day with a high temperature around 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  I walked down one flight of stairs when I came to the back entrance of the Morrill Science Center. I took a left out of the doors and walked in the parking lot between shade tree lab and Morrill until I passed Morrill 2 and was in the small parking lot across from Morrill 4 South.  On the opposite side of Morrill 4 South, there were 4 parking spots with a brown rock wall on one side. About 75% up the wall above the curb that lines the right side of the parking lot there was a spider web between two stones. The spiderweb was between the 9th and 10th stones, counted up from the curb.  The spider web was attached to three smaller rocks and one bigger rock. There was a piece of tan material stuck within the spider web, making it stick out.

To take the first vertical picture, I got much closer to the web. Only the 4 rocks surrounding it and the full length of the web were shown in my photo I angled my phone’s camera directly at the web, from the left side.  I made sure my phone was focused on the web and not on the rocks, so the left barrier rock was blurry in my image. Directly in the middle of the top quarter of the picture was the small tan filament. Where the middle rock in the photo turned was slightly right to the direct middle of the frame.  The angle my camera was at makes the rocks look like they are pointing at about a 15 degree slant above the horizontal. The lower right hand side of the web has a light brown coating over part of the web.

I then began to make the  map. Using scribblemaps.com I located the parking lot in which I found the spider web. I then began to label “Morrill IV South” at 42.390238005 degrees North and -72.524533868 degrees West.  I did this by clicking the “abc” button in the top left corner and then putting the label in around the place I wanted it. Then, I clicked on the label and entered desired latitude and longitude.  I followed the same process to label “Wilder” at 42.390352903 degrees North and -72.523756027 degrees West. I then labeled “Morrill II” at 42.389915101 degrees North and -72.524363548 degrees West.  And finally I labeled “The University Club” at 42.389897272 degrees North and -72.523683608 degrees West. The resulting shape was a horizontal rectangle.

I then labeled the place in which I found the spider web. I searched for the University Club and a map of the area came up.  I placed the gray cross directly in front of the red car in the set of 3 cars on the map. I then selected the small circle tool in the top left toolbar on the website.  The area of the circle I put on the map was 85.71 meters squared with a radius of .01 km and a circumference of .03 km. At first, the circle showed up with a red outline and filled in green.  I selected the eraser tool and clicked on the middle of the circle to erase the green and leave a red outline. To obtain the map I kept the cross directly in the middle of the circle and zoomed in all the way to that point. From there, I clicked the negative zoom button twice.

I then started the screenshot of the map by clicking Control+Command+4.  I started my mouse in the top left corner just under the settings box and between North pleasant street and the sidewalk.  I then dragged the mouse to the right over to Stockbridge Road. I then dragged the mouse down past the lower labeling of Stockbridge Road on the map.  That saved the image to my desktop.

To take the third picture, I put my black sweatshirt down on top of the ledge and focused the camera so that the University Club was in the top right corner of the frame.  The picture was vertical. The 5 windows on the northern facing side of the building were visible in the shot, but only one second floor window and one first floor window were visible on the Western facing side.The fence was also visible in the frame.  While there was some space between the right end of the fence and the edge of the picture, the left side of the fence was not visible in the picture. There were 15 black fence posts visible in the frame with my black sweatshirt folded partially blocking the view of the bottom of two leftmost posts.  Since I took the picture at a slight angle, the right hand side of the frame goes up to about the middle second floor window. The left hand side of the frame only goes up to what would be the equivalent of the top of the first floor of the University Club if a line had been drawn from the left top corner of the picture over to the house, running parallel to the brick wall. The bottom left hand corner of the picture was almost touching the bottom of the brick wall on that side.

I took the vertical pictures on an iPhone 6.  I created the map with scribblemaps.com. I made the .png file with the pictures in Powerpoint.

Using Powerpoint, I dragged the three pictures onto one slide and organized them in the following order left to right: zoomed in web photo, map, and surroundings of web.  I then deleted the existing text boxes. The pictures were aligned so that their size could be maximized while still being next to each other with a small margin. I made the two vertical photos the same size and centered them to the horizontal photo and I centered all of them to the middle of the slide.  I then added small text boxes to the lower left hand corner of each photo. I made the zoomed in photo: A, the map: B, and the surroundings photo: C. I then highlighted each of the letters and clicked on the black A with the red line under it, making the letters red. I then clicked the insert tab and then shapes button to select the “right arrow” to point from the left side to the web.  The size of the arrows in my photo was comparable to the size of one of the stones. I then selected the “down arrow” to point to the location of the spider web from above. I made the “down arrow” about the same size as the “right arrow”.

In the two figures I was given to examine (#15), there were several differences.  I can infer that the differences that I observed were most likely caused by a minor lack of detail in the original methods causing the replica to be slightly different.  

The largest difference that I noticed involved the flower.  I observed that the flowers had different stems: one curled up and away from the main stem and the other came from the stem at an almost 90 degree angle. I can infer that the methods must have not included the angle of the stem.  In the original picture, I observed that that the orientation of the flower to the stem was stem on the right and flower on the left of the picture, but the replica picture had the opposite. I can infer that the orientation of stem to flower was not detailed in the methods.  In the background of the first picture there are several large flowers at the top, but in the second picture the flowers in the background are mostly below. I can infer that the methods did not include the angle at which the picture was taken or what the background would look like.

In the second picture, the results are strikingly similar.  Since the tree is the same exact tree and both pictures were taken in daylight, I can infer that these were well illustrated in the methods.  The one difference I observe in the pictures is the amount of water on the wall. I can infer that that was probably not an error in the methods, but just a product of chance that it rained that day.  

The third picture is a map highlighting the countries in which these species are found.  The first map highlights Florida, but the second does not and the second highlights Belize and Guatemala, but the first one does not.  A factor that caused the difference in the two maps is a difference in research.

In the two figures I was given to examine (#15), there were several differences.  I infer that the differences that were observed were most likely caused by a minor lack of detail in the original methods causing the replica to be slightly different.  

I observed that the flowers had different stems: one curled up and away from the main stem and the other came from the stem at an almost 90 degree angle.  In the original picture, I observed that that the orientation of the flower to the stem was stem on the right and flower on the left of the picture, but the replica picture had the opposite.  In the background of the first picture there are several large flowers at the top, but in the second picture the flowers in the background are mostly below.

In the second picture, the results are strikingly similar.  Since the tree is the same exact tree and both pictures were taken in daylight,  The one difference I observe in the pictures is the amount of water on the wall.  

The third picture is a map highlighting the countries in which these species are found.  The first map highlights Florida, but the second does not and the second highlights Belize and Guatemala, but the first one does not.

Inferences

The areas that I believed had the most discrepancies were the flower, the angle and background of the photos, the differences in countries filled out in thedescribing the flower, explaining the angle and background of the flower, and

I can infer that the methods must have not included the angle of the stem.

I can infer that the orientation of stem to flower was not detailed in the methods.

I can infer that the methods did not include the angle at which the picture was taken or what the background would look like.

    I can infer that these were well illustrated in the methods.

I can infer that that was probably not an error in the methods, but just a product of chance that it rained that day.

A factor that caused the difference in the two maps is a difference in research.

In the METHODS project, I will search and find a spider web that someone else can replicate.  In order to find a spider, I will look in the corners of my friend’s apartment. From prior experience, I know that spiders tend to make their webs in generally undisturbed areas.  Knowing this fact, I plan to look in corners that are blocked by some type of furniture. That furniture will block humans from entering that area making a better environment for spiders to make their webs.  I will also look outside between fence posts because these are easily replicable.

    With the photos I take, I will create a multi-panel scientific figure that will enable someone else to reproduce a similar spider web.  A map and a meticulous description of my methods will accompany the scientific figure to allow for easier reproduction of my spider web.

Everything I did this morning

• Alarm went off

• Snoozed it

• Repeat about 10 times

• Slowly woke up

• Went on Instagram for like 10 minutes

• Got out of bed

• Brought my toothbrush toothpaste face wash and hand towel to the bathroom

• Went to the bathroom

• Took my retainer out

• Brushed my teeth

• Brushed my retainer

• Washed my face

• Dried my face

• Came back to the room

• Checked the weather for the day

• Picked out an appropriate outfit for that weather

• Got dressed

• Put the shades up

• Talked to my roommate

• Did my mascara and blush

• Packed my backpack with my chargers and laptop

• Put my shoes and socks on

• Grabbed a belvita breakfast bar

• Said bye to my roommate for the weekend

• Walked to the ILC while eating my belvita bar

• Listened to music

• Physics Class

• Went to the bathroom

• Walked out of physics and to a table

• Set up at a table to do homework

• Texted my friends about house hunting for senior year

• Finished my application

• Did some homework

• Walked to Blue Wall

• Ordered a hummus wrap but got a hummus bowl

• Went to the bathroom

• Walked to Genetics Class

• Got a call with a job offer

• Genetics Class

• Ate hummus bowl

Throughout an average day, I communicate with various people through different mediums.  I interact with my roommate every morning before leaving for class. In class, I also interact with my peers to problem solve. On Thursday, September 13th, I interacted with my peers in General Genetics and Introductory Physics.  During lunch, I also ordered my food from an employee. These interactions were all face to face communication. I also interact with people through other means. For example, I text my friends throughout the average day. On this particular day, I also got a call from a rehabilitation center offering me a position.  Communication is a common part of my typical day, though it is through different mediums.

Although electronic devices are used throughout the day for communication, they are also a substantial part of my day in other regards.  I use my phone to wake myself up in the morning with several alarms, to check Instagram in the morning, and to listen to music while walking to class.  I use my laptop to check the weather in the morning, do homework, and apply for jobs. Technology is a substantial component of my day.

Since my phone is such a significant part of my life, I use it during most unchanging routines I have throughout the day.  One of the most monotonous activities I take part in every day is hygiene. When I wake up I go to the bathroom to wash my face, brush and floss my teeth and retainer and brush my hair.  During this process, I am generally checking Instagram and Facebook. When I go back to my room, I check the weather on my laptop and pick out an appropriate outfit for the weather. I then apply mascara and blush to my face and get dressed.  At this point, I am ready for class so I plug in my headphones and head to the ILC.

Since UMass is such a large campus, I spend a lot of my day walking from place to place.  On Thursday, September 13th, I walked from my room to the bathroom, from Coolidge to the ILC, and from the ILC into Blue Wall.  Later on that day I walked from the ILC to Morrill. On every walk I take I listen to music and sometimes check social media.

Interacting with people face to face: Said bye to my roommate for the weekend, Physics Class, Ordered a hummus wrap but got a hummus bowl, Genetics Class

Interacting with people through another medium of communication: Texted my friends about house hunting for senior year, Got a call with a job offer

Used electronics: Alarm went off, Snoozed it, Repeat about 10 times, Went on instagram for like 10 minutes, Checked the weather for the day, Listened to music, Texted my friends about house hunting for senior year, Finished my application, Did some homework, Got a call with a job offer

Hygiene: Went to the bathroom, Took my retainer out, Brushed my teeth, Brushed my retainer, Washed my face, Dried my face, Picked out an appropriate outfit for that weather, Got dressed, Did my mascara and blush, Put my shoes and socks on, Went to the bathroom

Movement: Got out of bed, Brought my toothbrush toothpaste face wash and hand towel to the bathroom, Came back to the room, Walked to the ILC while eating my belvita bar, Walked out of physics and to a table, Walked to Blue Wall, Walked to Genetics Class

Academic: Physics Class, Genetics Class, Did some homework

Eating: Walked to the ILC while eating my belvita bar, Ate hummus bowl

The relationship shown in the graph is not a relationship I would expect to find in nature.  I do not think this phenomenon is possible in nature because the graph shows that local species richness is higher than the regional species richness at all points on the line.  The two X axes are set equal to each other and the slope of the line is higher than one, making local richness higher than regional richness. Since the local area is a part of the regional area, having a local richness that is higher than the regional richness is not possible. The number of species found in the local area would factor into the number of species in the regional area, constantly making the regional species richness higher than the local species richness.

I would not expect to find this relationship between local and regional diversity in nature.  I do not think this is possible to observe in nature because the local species richness is higher than the regional species richness at all points on the line.  The axes are set equal to each other and the slope of the line is higher than 1, making local richness higher than regional richness. This is not possible because the number of species found in the local area would have to factor into the number of species in the regional area, constantly making the regional area higher in richness.

A. Draw how a species in the Southern hemisphere will shift due to an increase in temperature.

A species in the Southern hemisphere will move south due to an increase in temperature as a result of climate change.

B.  How and why does this shift differ from the way a species in the Northern hemisphere would shift?  

A species in the Northern hemisphere would shift more northward in an effort to maintain the climate they are accustomed to.  The temperature is usually colder towards the poles due to the sun’s interaction with the surface. (Maybe in the session ask why it is colder by the poles- the sun has to travel through more atmosphere and the same amount of energy from the sun is distributed over a relatively larger area than it is at the equator.)

C. What are some factors that could prevent them from shifting effectively?

The organism’s rate of transition may be too slow to keep up with the rising temperatures.  If the organism cannot move towards the poles or up a mountain fast enough, they could potentially become extinct due to their environment becoming too harsh for them to tolerate.  Another factor could be that their food source could not shift at the same rate that the organism did. The new area that the organism shifts to may still not suit the organism’s ideal climate either.  

2. How and why do carbon levels fluctuate throughout the year?  

Atmospheric carbon levels are higher during the fall and winter months and lower during the spring and summer months.  Carbon levels fluctuate throughout the year due to the fluctuating level of plant activity. During the spring and summer months, the plants are thriving and therefore more photosynthesis is occurring.  During photosynthesis, the plants take in carbon dioxide, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. During the winter months, the plants are less active and therefore more carbon is left in the atmosphere.

The spider observed has a light brown exterior with slightly darker appendages. The spider, including its appendages, was about the size of a quarter with the legs making up most of the area.  The legs of the spider appeared to be about the thickness of a piece of average hair. The abdomen of the spider was slightly darker than the head which is a very light brown. Where the appendage bends, there are areas which appeared to be slightly darker or slightly lighter like joints.  Each appendage contained 3 joints forming a trapezoid like shape. About a millimeter away from the terminal end of the leg, there was a final bend away from the body that connected with the surface supporting the spider. When the cup was moved, the spider tilted with it in order to stay upright.  The spider moved from the bottom of the cup to the top when flipped around. When hanging from the top of the cup the abdomen and head did not make contact with the cup. The spider seemed to be sticking to the top of the cup upside down with just its legs. The cup contained what appears to be the beginning of a web with small, white, tubular, thin filaments.  A few white and light brown dots were observed in the cup.