Regarding the Emlen funnel tests, 40.9% were discarded for being either inactive (7.4%) or disoriented (33.5%). There is no further information about which birds had their tests discarded, which could be an interesting fact to consider because it could change sample sizes and induce bias. In order to support the discarding of such tests, the researchers could refer to the variables that may have influenced the results, such as the weather or the age of the bird. It is possible that some of the discarded results belonged to juvenile birds on their first migration, which would use vector navigation since they still lack part of the map component of navigation that is gained through experience. Since birds may rely on multiple cues for navigation, this study does not provide the whole picture of bird migration because it was performed at fixed locations. An interesting follow-up study could track the same birds with satellite tagging to determine if they reached their breeding grounds despite having a sectioned V-1.
Comments
Topic sentence
Hi, this paragraph was well written but I think it could benefit from a topic sentence. Maybe defining the Emlen funnel test or talking about the specific bird?
I think it would sound less
I think it would sound less wordy and more clear if rather than saying "Regarding the Emlen funnel tests, 40.9% were discarded for being either inactive (7.4%) or disoriented (33.5%)," you just said "40.9 of the emlen funnel tests were discarded for being either inactive...."
When you say 'could be an
When you say 'could be an interesting fact', I feel like that is an inference and could be turned into an observation by being re-worded.