nskinner's blog

The replicated figure does in fact show an image of the same leaf as the original. It lacks a ruler in the photo to show size. The hand holding the leaf is also not orientated the same way as the original. The time of day seems to possibly be different in the replicate since the leaf and hand is within the shadow of the tree rather than being in the sunlight such as the original is. The figure A also showed the trunk to the chute in the photo whereas the replicate only shows the petiole of the leaf in addition to the leaf itself. The figure B that shows the entire chute and the bottom half of the tree is also completely shadowed rather than the tree casting a 90-degree shadow to the right of its trunk. The arrow in figure B is also slightly off in regards to the angle of the arrow in the original. It looks like the photo was captured while the photographer was standing closer to the tree than the photographer of the original photo. The figure C replicate also looks like it was a photo taken by someone standing closer than that of the original photo. Like the shadowing in figure A, the shadow of the trees is also different in the replicate than the original in figure C. It seems like the time of day when the photos were taken was different in the replicate than it was in the original. The tree on the left of the figure C photo is also cut off a little whereas in the original it is not cut off at all. The letters that label the figures are also a little different. The second figure which included the map had a smaller red X than the original figure 2. They are in smaller text boxes and located more in the left corner than they are in the originals.

To determine whether a student would be able to replicate a multi figure panel based on descriptive scientific writing alone we assigned the Methods Project. The Methods Project required that the student locate evidence of phytophagy on the campus of University of Massachusetts Amherst and take photos of that evidence. We took photos that included a close-up image of the evidence, then a image of the object from farther away to show location, and then a map of where that evidence was on the campus.  We found that with descriptive scientific writing in the form of a methods section of a scientific article the student was able to create a multi panel figure that closely resembled the original multi panel figure created by another student. Although they were similar there were some striking difference in the figures. Some of those differences included the orientation of the hand holding the leaf that displayed evidence of phytophagy, the absence of a ruler to show scale, and some difference in the time of day the photos were taken which resulted in a change in the shadows cast by the trees that showed the evidence. We concluded that with using descriptive scientific writing that the multi panel figures were close but not the same. These results suggest that the students could improve on their scientific writing skills.

Although there were striking similarities between the original figure and the replicate, there were differences and those difference can be accounted for. The figure A may be lacking a ruler if the replicator did not posses a ruler at the time of the photo being taken. The hand in the photo may not be in the correct orientation because of the lack of description as to how the hand was orientated while holding the leaf and the ruler. The difference in the time of day could be accounted for due to the replicator’s availability. It is possible that the replicator was not on campus around 4:00pm when the original photos were taken. Taking the photos for the figure at a different time of day also accounts for the differences in the shadows made by the tree. The replicate photos were also taken by a person standing closer to the tree than the person in the originals. This could be due to subjective understanding of how far away a certain amount of measurement is. One person might estimate 5 feet and be more accurate than the other person. Estimation of distance could also account for the tree on the left in figure C being cut off on the left side. The replicator might not have been standing far enough away to capture both trees and the entirety of the library in the background. The letters labeling the figures differed in the figures most likely due to lack of description of the size of the text box used to make the letter labels. Lack of description could also account for the red X being different on the second figure.

The replicated figure does in fact show an image of the same leaf as the original. It lacks a ruler in the photo to show size. The hand holding the leaf is also not orientated the same way as the original. The time of day seems to possibly be different in the replicate since the leaf and hand is within the shadow of the tree rather than being in the sunlight such as the original is. The figure A also showed the trunk to the chute in the photo whereas the replicate only shows the petiole of the leaf in addition to the leaf itself. The figure B that shows the entire chute and the bottom half of the tree is also shadowed rather than the tree casting a 90-degree shadow to the right of its trunk. The arrow in figure B is also slightly off in regard to the angle of the arrow itself. It looks like the photo was captured while the photographer was standing closer to the tree than the photographer of the original photo. The figure C replicate also looks like it was a photo taken by someone standing closer than that of the original photo. The shadow of the trees is also different in the replicate than the original in figure C. It seems like the time of day when the photos were taken was different in the replicate than it was in the original. The tree on the left of the figure C photo is also cut off a little whereas in the original it is not cut off at all. The letters that label the figures are also a little different. They are in smaller text boxes and located more in the left corner than they are in the originals. 

In order for any scientific work to become valid it must be replicated by other scientists who must be able to redeem the same results as the original experiment. The Methods Project is a way for students to practice descriptive scientific writing. After doing this project the student should be able to describe their method of completing a task to such extent that another student should be able to follow that method and replicate that task. The task in this project was to create a multi panel figure that displayed evidence of phytophagy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. Although the students are mostly juniors in college, their ability to write a proper methods section in a scientific paper is unknown. To determine if the students were able to replicate the multi panel figure first created by a fellow student, they were assigned the Methods Project. The approach taken was to locate evidence of phytophagy, take pictures of it, and create a multi figure panel with those photos. Those photos were to be labeled properly, show a reference to the size of the evidence, and include any arrows or graphics necessary to show where that evidence was located on campus. The leaf that was selected that showed evidence of phytophagy was chosen because of its accessibility. It was located on a chute that was distinctive enough that another student following the methods would be able to find that exact leaf. The location was easy and convenient to access for anyone. The controlled factors would include weather and time of day that the photo was taken. With these factors considered another student should be able to replicate the figure after reading my methods.   

Whaling has been a practice for thousands of years. About 4000 years ago whaling was practiced by Norwegians and most likely the Japanese as well. Whaling was also practiced by many Inuit communities in the artic. During that time the entire whale was used. Blubber was used as a source of vitamins and protein for people to eat. Bones where made into tools. Baleen was used for basket weaving, roofing material, and fishing line. As whaling became more and more popular and profitable, European communities began the practice and eventually America began the practice. Whaling in America was rather wasteful and excessive. There is an oil gland in the head of most whales that is called the melon. This melon contains oil that people sought after for lighting lamps. There were some other uses for the oil such as cosmetics, lubricants, and heating but mainly it was used to lamp oil.

                In the 1800’s whaling had reached its climax and people became more efficient in killing whales. Harpoon guns were much more efficient and steam ships were faster. Since humans were becoming more populated and more efficient at killing whales, their populations began to plummet. In the 1900’s people became less reliant on whale oil due to the new use of petroleum. Later in the 1900’s whales started to become recognized as endangered. Fortunately, in 1971 the U.S. outlawed whaling. Since then, some species of whales rebound. As time goes on, whaling has become more and more unpopular allowing some species of whales to continue to recuperate.   

Center of Flowers:

• The center of the flowers in the figures differ. In the original (a) the center of the flower is bigger than the non-original (a).
• In the original figure (b) the center of the flower is more conal shaped and larger than that of the non-original (b).
• In the original figure (c), the center is larger and pointing to the right corner of the photo. The non-original figure (c) has a smaller, more pointed center pointing to the top left corner of the photo.
• Figure (d) in the original is only two flower centers without petals but the non-original figure (d) has several flower heads with cones and petals.

Photo Clarity:

• The original set of photos has better clarity than the second set.

The Ruler

• In both sets of photos, the ruler is the same and only present in the figure (b). In the original, the ruler is coming from the bottom right corner of the phot and about 2 inches of the ruler is shown extending into the center of the photo. In the non-original photo, the ruler comes from the middle of the bottom of the photo and still shows about 2 inches but it reaches all the way to the right side of the photo.
• The mom-original photo figure (b) also seems to have a more close up angle of the ruler.

Petals

• The petals in the original photos differ from the non-original photos. In the originals, the petals in some of the photos are pointed downward whereas the non-original photos have petals that are more radial and ray-like making a circle out of the flower head rather than a cone shape.

The original set of photos has better image quality. The second set has some blurry photos. The flower in the orignal figure (a) has a larger center than the flower in the non-orginal figure (a) photo. The orginal panel figure (b) has a flower that has a larger center then the non-orignal panel b flower and it is taken at a different angle. The petals in the orignal photo of the photo labeled (b) has petals that are moving downward whereas the non-orignal figure b photo has petals that are more radial and sticking out making the whole top of the flower more circular rather than cone shaped. The photo looks like it was taken up closer than the original as well since the ruler looks bigger in the second photo than the original. The ruler is the same ruler it appears. The original figure (c) has the flower cone pointed towards the top right corner of the flower and the second photo has the flower pointing to the top left. The figure (d) in the original has almost no petals present in the photo. It looks like they all died back. The non-orignal photo has several flower heads that all have petals on them in the photo. Overall, at first glance they do all look similar but these difference set apart the orginal photos from the non-orginals. 

Plant specimens require accurate identification of the plant and the provision of collecting information. Each specimen should have intact leaves free from evidence of phytophagy. The specimen should have enough parts of the plant to help with identification. For example, the specimen should show if the leaves are opposite or alternate, simple of compound, the edges of the leaves, the leaf shapes, buds flowers and fruits etc. The specimen should not be dying back, it should represent the color of the plant while it is in good health. An exception to this would be trees that have fall foliage colors. The recording of the date and location is important to collecting plant specimens.

Once a specimen is selected and cut it should be placed in a plant press. Place the labeled specimen onto a sheet of newspaper that can be folded in half over the plant. The sheet should not be larger than the dimensions of the plant press, in other words it should not hang out of the plant press. Open the plant press by loosening the straps, place the folded sheet with the specimen inside in-between the cardboard layers, and then close the plant press tightening it with the straps. It should take at least a week before the plant is dry and is ready.

Phytophagy is the act of consuming plants. This can be done in many ways and evidence of this is all around us. Right here on campus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, phytophagy is present in the form of insects consuming leaves. On a warm sunny day in fall around 4:00pm on a Friday I left the BCRC room in Morrill Science Center III south by taking a right down the hallway. At the end of the hallway I took a left and then entered a large door into a stair well. Through the big heavy door, there is the stair well that has the walls painted with various themes of science. I began descending the stairs. I walked to the very bottom of the stair well and opened the door to a new hallway where I took a left. I went through a set of doors, down a short set of stairs and through the last set of doors finally stepping outside. I walked down the side walk to the left. I saw a small set of stairs on my right about 40 feet from the door I just exited; leading me to a crosswalk at the bottom. I then went down those stairs. I crossed the crosswalk located at the bottom of the stairs. I was sure to look both ways before crossing the street and made sure no cars where coming. Once across the street I walked across the east lawn heading in the direction of the library tower. At the edge of the campus pond there are two granite benches. The bench on the left is located between two trees. The tree on the right in-between the two benches has a small shoot growing from the base of the adult tree. This shoot is located on the side of the tree closest to the Morrill Science Center buildings. Halfway up this shoot is a leaf that has three large wholes in the center of the leaf almost in a clover shape. It also has two smaller holes towards the apex of the leaf one on each side of the main venation of the leaf. On the left side of the leaf there is a series of holes in what looks like a “cancer ribbon” shape. In my left hand I held the leaf and a ruler on the inches side to show that the leaf is approximately 2 inches long which is approximately 5 centimeters. I held the leaf and measured it with the stem to the left and the apex to the right. I took the picture with my phone.