Drafts

One of the most important ways to credit a scientists work is through replication. Replicating a scientists’ work validates and reduces variability in experimental results. In this project, the process of replication was used to test observation and inference skills. The goal was to have a reader recreate a similar multi-panel scientific figure to the one that the writer had created, only using a description of the process used to develop it. The multi-panel figure contained at least three pictures: a close up picture of a spider web, a picture of the relative location and setting of the web, and a map of the area on campus that the spider web was found. Precise observations result in more accurate outcomes in an experiment. This project required proficient observation and writing skills in order to obtain a similar replicate of the original figure. A detailed procedure on how the pictures were taken and the development process of the figure were needed to obtain an accurate result. I chose the spiderweb I found in Morrill II because I believed it was a good location, it was a faint, complex web, and it obtained a spider on it. Choosing this web allowed me to give my reader an accessible location to find and take the same pictures and enabled me to elaborate on the fine details of the web itself and the process I used to create my figure. The groove in the wall I found my web gave me an opportunity to use the program, Inkscape, to enhance my figure inserting additional features such as arrows. Some of the controlled variables in this project include the location of the web, the types of pictures used in the figure, and some of the finalizing features on the figure. Every project must describe web that is on campus, consist of at least three pictures of the web and its location, and the finalized figure must include labels, be the sized to a sheet of paper, be 1200 pixels and be exported as a “png” file. Between detailed observations and specific controlled variables, the project should result in a similar replica of the original multi-panel scientific figure.

Figure 1. Original (1) and replicate (2) images made from following the methods section. (1.A & 2.A) The location of the spider web in relation to the Integrated Learning Center (ILC) and the Campus Center. (1.B & 2.B) The walkbridge connecting the ILC and Campus Center. (1.C & 2.C) White circle showing the precise location of the spider web on the walkbridge. (1.D & 2.D) Close up of the spider web woven into the grey metal bars of the walkbridge.

Writing lab reports is an important part of any biologists life and practice in writing all sections of such a report is crucial to being successful. An introduction to the topic, informing the reader of general background information on the experiment and why it was done is necessary. The methods of the experiment provide a blueprint, allowing for replicability, and thus the ability to confirm results or allow others to improve upon them. The results of the experiment must be concise, a statement of just facts. No interpretations, only laying out what resulted from the experiments. Finally, the discussion section reveals how one may interpret the results. Furthermore, this may be used to discuss what may be done to improve the experiment, or what may be done in the future.

To simulate a research report students were tasked with finding a spiderweb and photographing it. A multi-panel figure would then need to be created using the photographs and map images. In order to practice writing clear, accurate methods, the student had to write with the intention of another student following their methods, and then replicating the photographs and figures. This project demonstrated the need to be highly specific and precise with methods writing. Furthermore, comparison of figures only after both were created highlighted mistakes and areas where the methods could have been improved upon.

The ability to identify factors which need to be controlled for is another crucial skill when designing experiments and writing research report. When taking photographs of the spiderweb, there were a number of factors to control for in order to obtain similar pictures. This included things such as the time of day, amount of light, and weather needed to be accounted for. In addition to this, the object used for accurately representing scale had to be noted, as well as where it was held in relation to the spider web. Furthermore, distance from the spiderweb, and the angle at which the photograph was taken had to be taken into account.

Similar factors had to be controlled when describing the editing done to create the figure. The size the photographs were scaled to was noted, as well as their general arrangement. How labeling was implemented on the figure was to be controlled. This included the color, font sizes, and location of the labeling.

This project was conducted by the students in Writing in Biology 312 under the instruction of Dr. Steven Brewer. It consisted of each student collecting a series of images and putting together a figure while simultaneously writing a methods section detailing its construction. The objective was to create a replicable set of methods so that another student in the class could recreate the figure prior to seeing the original. 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. By having another student in the class follow the set of methods detailing the synthesis of the figure, we could infer what portion of the methods needed improvement or more clarity. These inferences were based on observations of dimorphisms between the original figure and the replicate. This paper covers a specific set of methods and the resultant replicate figure.

The photograph of the close-up spider webs placed in Panel A in the figures are not identical. In figure 1 a gift card was used for scale, but in Figure 2 a Ucard was used. In Figure 2 the Ucard was placed on the left side of the web, instead of near the bottom of the web like it was Figure 1. In addition, the spider web in Figure 2 was more zoomed out. In Figure 1 the bush appears darker than it does in Figure 1. Another observed difference in this panel is the web. In Figure 2 the web is more visible than it is in Figure 1. 

In the formatting of Figure 1 and Figure 2 there were differences. One of the most prominent differences is in the sizing of the figure. Figure 1 is larger than Figure 2. The second Figure also featured a border around the Figure, while Figure 1 does not. The circular labels in the top left hand corners of each panel are different sizes between the figures. Within the circle labels, the text was also made to be a different size and font. In addition, to the overall formatting and creation of the figures there are also differences within the photographs and map. 

Further evidence for the idea of evolution is the existence of vestigial structures. These vestiges are structures that are genetically determined but have lost some or all of their original function from the ancestral species. Oftentimes, vestigial structures are homologous to structures in related species. The way a vestige is formed is during typical evolutionary process when a structure loses its function and no longer provides a positive pressure. The loss of function can come from a change in the environment that the ancestral species originally adapted to. So long as the structure does not now present a negative pressure due to some hinderance on the species, it is considered neutral and not necessarily selected for or against. As a result, instead of losing the feature it may persist though it has no inherent value anymore. Common examples of vestigial structures are the hip bones that remain in snakes and whales. At a time, these species had ancestors that had limbs that required hips for mobility. Now that they no longer have the same limbs and are under different selective pressure, the genetics still encode for a hip bone, but it is not used. The bone is not a detractor and is not selected against but is slowly withering away over evolutionary time.

There are a variety of differences between my original multi-panel figure and the replicated figure. First of all, the photograph of the spider web seems to be taken from a different angle than the original. It is difficult to see the spider web in Figure A. I observed that the pencil in the replicated figures facing a different direction than the original. While the photograph for Figure B is pretty similar to the original figure, the replicated version is closer than the original photo. I also noticed that the editing of the figures is drastically different from the original. The sizing of Figure A and B in the replicated multi-panel figure are much thinner and taller than the ones in the original. Additionally, I observed that the letters A, B, and C are significantly larger than the boxes they are supposed to be in. While the white box for C is in the correct place, the boxes for A and B are placed in a different spot than the original boxes. The letters are also missing a period after them. Finally, I noticed that the sizing and placement of the black star is slightly different between the two multi-panel figures.

Adult african lungfish are obligate airbreathers. While they spend most of their time in shallow water, they must come up at least once an hour for air. When needed, the lungfish will pop its head above water and open its mouth.  The hyoid arch of the fishs jaw will retract, opening the oropharyngeal cavity in the mouth. This creates a negative pressure, unlike what occurs with our own lungs, and allows fresh air to fill the cavity. Once full, the glottis opens, allowing passage to the lung. Air already in the lung will be expelled, passing over the fresh new air in the oropharygeal cavity. Unfortunately some old and new air mixes, so this process is not entirely efficient. Elastic recoil occurs as the lung deflates, causing the shape of the lungfish itself to deflate with it. The mouth of the lungfish will then close and its hyoid arch will return to its position, closing the oropharyngeal cavity. The fresh new air in this cavity will instead be directed to the lung, filling it. After this process, the lungfish is free to sit at the bottom of its shallow pool of water, gobbling up shrimp or other small organisms until it needs to breath again.