Writing in Biology

Many components of the figure were like the original, but there were numerous differences. These differences highlighted details that were missing from the methods section or not written clearly enough. One oversight at the root of a number of the differences was the lack of units of measurement. Each component of the original figure was described with the dimensions in terms of the width and height, but none of them contained the type of unit being used. This resulted in the smaller font in the component label boxes. Had I designated that the entire figure utilized millimeters as the unit of measurement, then the three label boxes would have had a font size that resembled the original more closely. Furthermore, the length and thickness of the red line over the quarter would have also been more like the original. More clearly stating that the line was meant to encompass the diameter of the quarter would have also increased similarity. The objects in the background were more difficult to control because of the weather during the week the replicate was created. Thus, the moisture seen in the replicate was not necessarily due to the instruction of the methods because the weather and time were clearly stated. But, the images showing the location did not include the bike rack structure due to it not being mentioned in the methods that it was in the figure. I only stated the location from where the photograph was taken, not the details of the scenery.

 

Many components of the figure were like the original, there were differences. These differences highlighted details that were missing from the methods section. One oversight that was at the root of a number of the differences was the lack of units included in the methods section. Each component of the figure was described with the dimensions in terms of the width and height, but none of them contained the type of unit being used. This resulted in the font appearing smaller in the component labels. Had I designated that the entire figure utilized millimeters as the unit of measurement, then the three label boxes would have had a font size that resembled the original more closely. Furthermore, the length and thickness of the red line over the quarter would have also been more like the original. More clearly stating that the line was meant to encompass the diameter of the quarter would have also increased similarity. The objects in the background were more difficult to control because of the weather during the week the replicate was created, thus the moisture seen in the replicate was not necessarily due to the instruction of the methods because the weather and time were stated. But, the images showing the location did not include the bike rack structure due to it not being stated in the methods that it was in the figure. I only stated the location from where the photograph was taken, not the details of the scenery.

    Since the map portion contained the most differences, the part of the methods discussing its creation was not detailed enough. I did not clearly state the area shown in the map with other buildings or landmarks, and the resultant recreation was more zoomed out as a result. The abundance of labels on the replicate map also were also related to this because it showed a larger area. The text labeling the student union was written in a straight line in the replicate because I did not mention that wrote it on two separate lines in the methods. Much like the other labels and markings on the replicate, the red dot placed on the map was larger because I did not specify the units. Although the location box was correctly recreated, it extended to the left at a roughly 45 degree angle rather than the right because its directionality was not discussed in the methods. Similarly, the thin black line connecting the location dot to the location box was connected and overlapping in the replicate because I didn’t mention its connectivity.

    In conclusion, the replicate figure was similar in many regards to the original but a number exclusions from the methods section made certain components vague. This vagueness led to the discussed differences between the two figures. Mainly, not including the units of measurement with all of the dimensions in the methods. The lack of detail in the map portion of the original was also highlighted by the resulting replicate figure. This projects certainly emphasized the importance of paying attention to details when creating a methods section so that the replication process can proceed as intended.

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.

Upon side-by-side comparison of the two figures, a number of similarities and differences were observed. Firstly, the web at the center of the original figure was successfully located and the correct images were obtained. Moreover, the overall orientation of the three images contained within the original figure were faithfully reproduced. In addition, the format of the three figure labels were the same and placed in the same locations as the original. The box labeling the location was the same dimensions and the line extended to it was the same thickness. As for the other labels on the figure, the correct colors were used in the replicate and the general use of them was recreated correctly for the most part.

    Although many components of the replicate were similar to the original, a number of dimorphisms were observed as well. Each of the labels in the top left corner of each image had slightly smaller text compared to the original. In the image of the web, the line showing the length of the quarter for reference was longer and did not correspond with the length of the quarter. In addition, the number over the line was written in a larger font. For both the photograph of the web and the location, the background was slightly different and moisture was visible in the replicate. Next, the circle highlighting the area of the web was larger and covered a wider space.

    The map portion of the replicate contained the most differences. Firstly, it encompassed a larger region compared to the original and was more congested with labels. The text covering the student union was larger in font size displayed in a straight line. As for the red dot marking the absolute location of the web, the replicate version was larger. In addition, the line extending to the box labeled “location” extended off to the left rather than the right. The line also connected to a different part of the location label box and made contact with the dot and the label.

Each figure was intended to show a spider web somewhere on the University of Massachusetts campus, its relative location, and a map marking its absolute location. For the purpose of replicability, many factors needed to be controlled and clearly described in the methods section. The featured web was chosen because it was substantially sized, relatively easy to locate, and in an area that allowed for photography. Moreover, the methods were created with specific details in mind to increase similarity between the original and the replicate. These included the location of the web based on nearby geographical features, utilization of specific dimensions for both the images and the labels, and description of how each of the three images were obtained and oriented. Within this paper, the original methods, the original figure, the resultant replicate, and the consequential differences and similarities will be examined.

All living plants produce energy in their cells through the process of photosynthesis. This process takes place in the chloroplasts of plant cells, and consists of several chemical reactions that allow plants to harvest sunlight and produce carbohydrate molecules. This experiment used two model systems to study the effects of light on photosynthesis rates. The chloroplasts of spinach, also known as Spinacia oleracea, was the first model system studied. Spinach chloroplasts have been used as a model system in several experiments, including being used to study chloroplast DNA synthesis in relation to chloroplast growth and replication (Possingham,1976). The chloroplasts of kale, also known as Brassica oleracea, was the second model system used in this experiment. Kale is not widely used in laboratories when studying chloroplasts, but has been used as a model system in experiments involving the changes of chlorophyll pigment concentrations (Lefsurd, 2007).

Another observational difference between these two figures was the variation in the close up image of the spider web (Figure 1.D & 2.D). In the original image, the camera was held approximately 4-5 inches away from the metal rail to show the web in as much detail as possible. The replicated photograph was taken farther away from the metal rail, and the web cannot be easily seen. The replicate photo of the spider web was not taken where the original photo was taken. The original photo of the web was taken above the handrail, and the replicate photo was taken below the handrail.  

The first noticeable difference is in the layout of the pictures. Whereas Figure 1 has equally sized pictures, Figure 2 does not. The photos in Figure 2 are all different sizes and do not evenly match alongside the edges.

The object used for scale is inconsistent between the two figures. Figure 1 used a blue pen for the scale object and Figure 1 used a black cased, mechanical pencil.

Another noticeable difference is in the labelling of the pictures. Here, there are several differences, although both figures did use the same letter for each picture. First, the positioning is different in each of the figures. Figure 1 has the letters placed in the upper left hand corner. Figure 2 has the letters in no one clear organizational spot. Another difference is that Figure 1 has lowercase letters while Figure 2 used upper case letters. The color of the labels is different too. Figure 1 used black letters in red boxes to make the labels, while Figure 2 used red letters without a box.

The pictures themselves are different as well. For the most part, it seems as though the same web and area were photographed, but for Figure 2 A, the photo is put in upside down, which is noticeable by the pencil that was used for scale. Additionally, Figure 1 A is closer to the web and has less of the vent visible than in Figure 2 A. For images A-C, they appear sharper in Figure 1 than in Figure 2. Again, Figure 1 B is closer to the vent than in Figure 2 B. There is also an angular difference, seen to be looking down in Figure 1 B, where Figure 2 B is more face on. This is different from what is seen in part C of the panels. Figure 1 C is backed further away from the vents this time than Figure 2 C and has wooden doors available. Figure 2 C is almost perpendicular to the vent and is closer. The doors are not seen, but a pair of shoes are. Figure 1 does not have any feet or legs partially seen in the picture. Lastly is part D of the panels. Both show the correct location, the Morrill Science Center, but more noticeable is that fact that Figure 1 D shows the figure in a street map view, whereas Figure 2 D shows a satellite view and thus the actual building and surrounding elements are visible. To this effect, Figure 1 D shows a wider view of the area, including parts of roadways and the campus pond. Figure 2 D shows the road immediately next to the building.