nskinner's blog

Owning a pet tortoise is a long-term commitment. Many species of tortoises live to be 50+ years in age including horsfields tortoises. The first thing you need for a horsefields tortoise is a habitat to live in. It should be at least the equivalent to a 40-gallon tank size. Tortoise boxes, which are wooden boxes with a mesh top designed for tortoise habitats are preferred. Glass tanks can be confusing to the tortoise since they like to burrow and may dig at the bottom or sides of a glass tank for hours not getting anywhere. This can lead to stressing the tortoise and stress can lead to bad health. The substrate in the habitat should be something the tortoise can dig into. It should not have too many rocks pebbles and sand should be avoided so the tortoise does not scratch up the bottom of its shell. Coconut fiber substrate works well because it soft but still good for digging and burrowing. It is holds in moisture better than sand substrate which is ideal for the humidity requirement of 50% that the tortoise needs. The coconut fiber substrate is also, in most cases, digestible in case the tortoise accidently ingests some while eating. Tortoises should have a bowl to eat out of so that they do not ingest their substrate. They should also have a water bowl that I big enough for them to walk into and submerge about half of their body in water. Water should be changed daily since tortoises often soak themselves and defecate or urinate in the water. The habitat should also have a hot side and a cool side. The hot side has a UVA heat lamp hovering over it and should keep the tank around 90 degrees on that side. The other side of the tank should have a UVB lamp and that side should stay around 70-80 degrees and should include a shelter that the tortoise can hide in. The UVB light is important for the tortoises health. It provides the UVB light needed for vitamin D and also helps them metabolize calcium. The tortoise should have a calcium supplement in their food twice weekly. The food requirements are 75% leafy greens (kale, carrot tops, parsley, mustard greens etc) and 25% commercial pellet diet. Most tortoises enjoy mixing up their greens so they get a variety of different greens. Iceberg lettuce or romaine lettuce should be avoided because it is not as high in nutrient value as the darker greens such as kale. Fruits can be given as a snack but in small moderation because the sugar content is too high and can cause digestive issues. The tortoise should be offered fresh food daily. Food from the previous day should be cleaned out of the habitat daily and replaced with fresh food. Any stool should also be cleaned out daily. The substrate should be completely changed every 6 months or sooner depending on how good a job the daily cleaning is. The UVB light should also be changed every 6 months to ensure the quality of light is enough to keep the tortoise vitamin D requirements at optimal levels. Overall, tortoises are neat creatures that make lovely pets but do require daily work and most likely a lifetime commitment. Depending on the owners age, the owner may consider putting in their will who will take care of their tortoise after their passing since they live for so long. With the proper care, hopefully they do live a long 50+ years.  

As a veterinary technician one of my many jobs in the hospital is to run appointments alongside a doctor. The very first thing that I do each day is go through the entire schedule and review what each pet is coming in for and make sure that their medical record matches their appointment notes for that day. For example, if a dog has an appointment for a wellness exam and a rabies vaccine, I want to ensure that the dog is actually due for a rabies vaccine. When the client checks in for the appointment, I then walk to the reception area, obtain a clip board that has a check-in sheet on it and call out the name of the patient that is here for the appointment. I then bring the client and the pet into the exam room. I always introduce myself as “Nikki, one of the technicians here” so the owner of the pet knows who I am and what my roll is in the hospital. I then begin by confirming the patient is there for the correct thing. If the pet is there for a wellness appointment I may say “I see you’re here with your pet to get a wellness exam and up to date on vaccines.” If the owner confirms this is correct, I then ask a very open-ended question “How is (lets say fluffy) doing today? Any concerns?” This opens the floor for the owner to tell me about anything they can think of that may be of concern to them. Sometimes concerns can include that their pet has been itching a lot lately. Sometimes the owner states they have no concerns at all. I then ask a slew of detailed questions as I am searching for very particular information about the pets well being that the owner may have forgotten to mention, or possibly they didn’t realize could be a negative aspect to their pet’s health. I ask if their pet has had any coughing, sneezing, vomiting, or diarrhea. I also as if their pet has any increase in drinking or urination. I will also ask how their pet’s energy, activity and behavior has been. I want to know what their pet eats and how much. I also ask if their pet goes to boarding facilities or daycares or any other place where they are exposed to other animals. While I am asking these questions, I will be watching and accessing the pet’s behavior. A dog that is fearful may sit quietly. They may be panting, or lip smacking, which is basically licking their lips. Many people do not know that lip smacking is a sign of anxiety for dogs. Some dogs are happy to be there jumping up on me wagging their tail. Cats generally are sitting quiet with their legs tucked in underneath themselves. Their tail may be twitching at the end. Cats like that are generally not happy and possibly anxious, fearful, or stressed. Cats that are lounging around with their legs out or walking around bunting items in the exam room are comfortable and not afraid to be there. After asking questions and documenting them in the medical record I weigh the patient and record their weight. I then exit the exam room to round the doctor on how the pet is doing, what they are due for, and what the owner would like to have done. I will then draw up vaccines and get their invoice for the visit all set in the software system that we use. I enter the room with the doctor and restrain the pet for the physical exam and vaccines. If they pet is do for lab work I will then take the pet to the treatment area in our hospital while the owner discuses any questions or significant findings during the pets physical exam. I will draw blood, collect urine if needed, trim nails, then bring the pet back to the exam room. At this point the owner is usually finishing up talking to the doctor and will be heading to the reception area to then check out for their appointment. Of course, not all appointments run like this because not all appointments are just wellness visits for vaccines. Some appointments may include giving injectable medications, subcutaneous fluids, or even in extreme cases life saving procedures such as CPR.  

At first glance, the overall structure of the two articles is similar in the sense that they have sections that are titled. The article written by Boomsma JJ, Timmermans H, Corvers CPM, and Kabout J. about monogamous leaf mining larvae has a clear abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Within each of those are sub-sections that are clearly titled regarding their subject. The article written by Nakagaki about the smart behavior of slime molds has an abstract that is seemingly shorter in length than the abstract in the leaf mining article. The sections to the article written by Nakagaki are not labeled with the terms introduction, methods, results, discussion but rather labeled with the information and subjects that are within the corresponding paragraphs. Both articles have two columns of writing rather than the writing being in paragraphs that span the whole page. They are both visually pleasing overall and both take on a “textbook-like” look with figures and graphs located neatly within the columns of information. The level 1 headings in the article about leaf miners are the titles introduction, methods, results, discussion which are also numbered. For example, the level 1 heading “2. Methods” has a section below it that is “2.1 Field Collections” and so on until the last section of the methods which is titled “2.3 Within Leaf Feeding Stratification.” The article about smart slime mold behavior seems to only have level 1 headings. Both articles list references for the cited information. The leaf miner article is significantly longer than the slime mold article and thus has many more references. It is obvious that both articles are scientific in nature and are examples of scientific writing; even though they show various differences. Most paragraphs in each article show a clear “what” and “why” for a first sentence. Those sentences answer what the section is going to talk about and why it is talking about it. In the results section of the leaf mining article, the beginning of the section discusses that it is talking about “A substantial variation in hostplant characters” and specifically mentioned that “Betula pu- bescens appeared to have a broad distribution in the lower scale range, whereas Betula pendula was charac- terised by a narrow peak of high.” These statements indicate that section was going to discuss substantial variation between the hostplant characters and then specified what species had a broad range and what species had a narrow peak in the data. This first paragraph of this sentence gets to the point of what the section is discussing and why it is discussing it.

At first glance, the overall structure of the two articles is similar in the sense that they have sections that are titled. The article written by Boomsma JJ, Timmermans H, Corvers CPM, and Kabout J. about monogamous leaf mining larvae has a clear abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Within each of those are sub-sections that are clearly titled regarding their subject. The article written by Nakagaki about the smart behavior of slime molds has an abstract that is seemingly shorter in length than the abstract in the leaf mining article. The sections to the article are not labeled with the terms introduction, methods, results, discussion but rather labeled with the information and subjects that are within the corresponding paragraphs. Both articles have two columns of writing rather than the writing being in paragraphs that span the whole page. They are both visually pleasing overall and both take on a “textbook-like” look with figures and graphs located neatly within the columns of information. The level 1 headings in the article about leaf miners are the titles introduction, methods, results, discussion which are also numbered. For example, the level 1 heading “2. Methods” has a section below it that is “2.1 Field Collections” and so on until the last section of the methods which is titled “2.3 Within Leaf Feeding Stratification.” The article about smart slime mold behavior seems to only have level 1 headings. Both articles list references for the cited information. The leaf miner article is significantly longer than the slime mold article and thus has many more references. It is obvious that both articles are scientific in nature and are examples of scientific writing even though they show various differences. Most paragraphs in each article show a clear “what” and “why” for a first sentence. Those sentences answer what the section is going to talk about and why it is talking about it. In the results section of the leaf mining article the beginning of the section discusses that it is talking about “A substantial variation in hostplant characters” and specifically mentioned that “Betula pu- bescens appeared to have a broad distribution in the lower scale range, whereas Betula pendula was charac- terised by a narrow peak of high.” These statements indicate that section was going to discuss substantial variation between the hostplant characters and then specified what species had a broad range and what species had a narrow peak in the data. This first paragraph of this sentence gets to the point of what the section is discussing and why it is discussing it.

The act of phytophagy is the act of eating plants. In some way or another almost all living things depend on the feeding of plants. This ranges from herbivores that directly eat plant matter to carnivores that eat other organisms who may depend on plants. Species as large as an elephant depend on plants to feed and species as small as a beetle depend on plants for food. In some cases, it is easy to find a plant that shows evidence of phytophagy by insects. Leaves may be discolored and brown and show patterns of an insect eating its way through the leaf while other may show large holes in the leaf. In the case of the a Blue Vervain plant located in the back of the parking lot in Lot 12 at University of Massachusetts Amherst, there was clear indication of an insect eating many holes through the leaves of the plant. The stem was untouched, the pinnacles with small flowers were also untouched, yet the leaves where nearly destroyed by the insect using them as its food source.

To find evidence of phytophagy you must first find a place that would be a habitat to plants. The plants should be easy to access and show clear evidence of the consumption of their leaves. First bike or walk to the Lot 12 parking lot of University of Massachusetts Amherst. In the very back of the parking lot, which is the very west side of the parking lot is a guardrail. Behind this guardrail is a multitude of plants growing. Approximately 100 feet north from the very south corner of the parking lot there is a plant located about 2 feet behind the guardrail. Step over the guardrail to get closer to the plant. The plant has lanceolate serrated leaves, with purple flowers on the end of a long pinnacle. The leaves of this plant have 50-100 wholes in each leaf. The holes are likely caused by insects eating the plant. Take a picture of one of these leaves from about 5 inches distance. Be sure to focus the camera on the leaf when taking the picture. Take another picture of the entire plant itself from a few feet away. Step back over the guardrail and back into the parking lot to take another picture of the entire plant. Walk about 20 feet away from the guardrail to take a picture of where the plant is in relation to the rest of the lot. To identify the plant, you can use a dichotomous key, or an app on your phone. I used an app called inaturalist that uses filters and gps to suggest possible ID’s for the plant. The app suggested that the plant was Blue Vervain

I biked to the Lot 12 parking and scanned the back of the lot for evidence of phytophagy. I had to step over the guard rail into the knee-high brush located directly behind the guard rail. Amongst the golden rod and low shrubs stood a plant with small purple flowers blooming from long pinnacles. The leaves of the plant are lanceolate and have serrated margins. It is easy to distinguish from the surrounding plants behind the guard rail. The phytophagy evidence is easily found on almost all the leaves on this plant. Each leaf has many holes in it that are possibly chewed away by insects. Using my phone, I photographed one of the leaves from about 5 inches distance. I then stepped back and photographed the whole plant. I stepped back over the guardrail, back into the parking lot. I then moved 5 feet away from the guardrail and photographed the general area that the plant was growing. To better show the area, I moved about 20 feet away from the guardrail and took another photograph. To better identify the plant, I used a identification app called inaturalist. I uploaded the photo to the app and allowed the filter to suggest plants that match the description of this plant as well as the location of the plant. The app identified the plant as Blue Vervain.  

When presented with a plant sample that needs identification, one might start with whether the sample is woody, tree-like, shrub-like, vine, forb, aquatic, or evergreen versus deciduous. The sample in question seems to be possibly deciduous and shrub-like. It has broad flat leaves that are dark green on the top and lighter green on the bottom. The leaves themselves are almost waxy and reflective to some degree. The next step in identification is deciding whether or not the leaves are truly simple leaves, or compound structured leaflets. There are three total leaves in question within this sample. To decide this, the axillary bud must be identified. There are no axillary buds identifiable on this sample. Since it does not appear at the base of each leaf, one might assume that it was located at the base of the main leaf stalk connecting the three leaves together. This would make them leaflets rather than true leaves. The leaflets are organized in a compound structure rather than alternating. The margins of the leaflets are also key to identification. The margins of this sample appear to be wavy rather than serrated, lobed, or smooth. The overall shape of the leaflet is almost tear drop shaped with the narrow end toward the leaf stalk. Some leaf or leaflet shapes could be round, heart shaped, palm-lobed etc. but this sample remains a tear drop shape with wavy margins. Each leaflet is symmetrical; rather than asymmetrical. The overall size of the sample is 7cm in length and 7cm in width. Each leaflet is about 3.5cm in length and 3cm in width. Each leaf has a small dark brown discoloration to it that has a swirl like pattern branching off the discolored shape. This could be some sort of parasite or unfortunate symbiotic relationship. The dark brown discoloration seems to be a damaged part of the leaflet that reduces the surface area of green useful parts to the leaflet. Overall it is possibly a negative symbiotic relationship going on there. There are also 3-5 small bumps about 1mm in diameter on each leaflet. they are raised on the top of the leaflet and not noticeable on the bottom. It is unclear if there is a relationship between these bumps and the discolored patches. The bumps are a lighter green than the top dark green hue. They also have a slight pink tinge to them. The leaf stalk is fuzzy in appearance and pinkish brown colored. It is also flexible and has no bark. With these defining characteristics, one should be able to identify this plant using a key; assuming they know what region the sample is from.   

When presented with a plant sample that needs identification, one might start with whether the sample is woody, tree-like, shrub-like, vine, forb, aquatic, or evergreen versus deciduous. The sample in question seems to be possibly deciduous and shrub-like. It has broad flat leaves that are dark green on the top and lighter green on the bottom. The leaves themselves are almost waxy and reflective to some degree. The next step in identification is deciding whether or not the leaves are truly simple leaves, or compound structured leaflets. There are three total leaves in questions. To decide this the axillary bud must be identified. There is no axillary buds identifiable on this sample. Since it does not appear at the base of each leaf, one might assume that it was at the base of the main leaf stalk connecting the three leaves together. This would make them leaflets rather than true leaves. The leaflets are organized in a compound structure rather than alternating. The margins of the leaflets are also key to identification. The margins of this sample appear to be wavy rather than serrated, lobed, or smooth. The overall shape of the leaflet is almost tear drop shaped. Some leaf or leaflet shapes could be round, heart shaped, palm-lobed etc. but this sample remains a tear drop shape. It is symmetrical rather than asymmetrical. The overall size of the sample is 7cm in length and 7cm in width. Each leaflet is about 3.5cm in length and 3cm in width. Each leaf has a small dark brown discoloration to it that has a swirl like pattern branching off the discolored shape. This could be some sort of parasite or unfortunate symbiotic relationship. The dark brown discoloration seems to be a damaged part of the leaflet that reduces the surface area of green useful parts to the leaflet. Overall it is possibly a negative symbiotic relationship going on. There are also 3-5 small bumps about 1mm in diameter on each leaflet. they are raised on the top of the leaflet and not noticeable on the bottom. It is unclear if there is a relationship between these bumps and the discolored patches. The leaf stalk is fuzzy in appearance and pinkish brown colored. It is also flexible and has no bark. With these defining characteristics, one should be able to identify this plant using a key; assuming they know what region the sample is from.