mglater's blog

This project was assigned as part of the Spring 2018 Semester of the Writing in Biology course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The purpose of this project is to provide a chance to practice preparing part of a scientific paper. The assignment was to take a photograph of a flowering plant on campus and create a scientific figure using the photograph. The processes of taking the photographs and creating the figure were to be written out as a set of methods for another student to follow in order to recreate the figure.

In scientific writing, there are divisions that nearly every paper includes. One of these divisions is a methods section. This section allows the reader to understand the steps followed by the researcher, and if desired, to recreate the experiment. Allowing the reader to see how the research was done not only helps the reader understand the experiment, but also makes the data more trustworthy. Being able to write a coherent methods section is an important skill to have for an aspiring biologist.

Overall, the results from this experiment were not at all what would be hoped for. The carboxylic acid had an extremely low yield, and the neutral compound had a calculated yield of over 100%, meaning there was substantial contamination. The carboxylic acid also had colored impurities added from the pH strips, causing the crystals to turn a dark color. The ether layer still had a substantial amount of water even after being separated from the aqueous layer, and many clumps of CaCl2 were added in an attempt to dehydrate the solution. Although this helped remove some of the water, it is likely that there was still some amount of water present. This issue, along with other unnoticed errors in handling, caused a high level of contamination in the sample. Due to the contamination, more mass was recrystallized than was originally dissolved in the solution.

The flower in Fig. 1b has a formed circular shape, whereas the flower in Fig. 2b is less shapely, with petals sticking out at edges. On the right side of Fig. 2b a slight white color can be seen in the background. There is a small bud under the flower in Fig. 1b which is not present in Fig. 2b. Panel C is nearly identical in the two images, with the only difference being Fig. 2c has a small red square on the far left side.

The differences in image quality are due to the fact that the two photographers took the photos with different types of phones. The creator of Fig. 1 used an android phone, while the creator of Fig. 2 used an iPhone. The two styles each have their own type of camera, and as such the image comes out looking slightly different. The difference in card used to measure the flower is also a result of differences between the two photographers. The photographer for Fig. 1 chose to use a “Dunkin Donuts” gift card to provide scale, an object which the photographer for Fig. 2 did not have. Fig. 2 contains the back of a “Ucard”, which was chosen by the second photographer due to its similar shape and size to the gift card.

Many of the discrepancies between the two figures relate to the details of the flower on the plant. Based off of the fact that the images of the flower appear so different, along with the fact that the flower present in the center of Fig. 1a is no longer present in Fig. 2, it becomes clear that the flower for Fig. 1 was no longer present at the time Fig. 2 was taken. The attempt to follow the methods was unable to take a picture of the same flower, and so took a picture of a different one. This was the result of  a variable which was not controlled for, public access to the plant. Roughly one week passed between the taking of the two pictures, during which time the conservatory containing the plant was open for public access. In future experiments, it would be wise to pick a plant kept somewhere more secure, without the possibility of tampering.

The majority of the differences in the two figures are in relation to the details of the flower on the plant. Based off of the fact that the images of the flower appear so different, along with the fact that the flower present in Fig. 1a is no longer present in Fig. 2, it becomes clear that the flower for Fig. 1 was no longer present at the time Fig. 2 was taken. This was the result of  a variable which was not controlled for, public access to the plant. Roughly one week passed between the taking of the two pictures, during which time the conservatory containing the plant was open for public access. In future experiments, it would be wise to pick a plant which had no chance of being tampered with.

Similarly to panel B, the flower in Fig. 1d and the flower in Fig. 2d have differing shapes. Along with that, in Fig. 1d, the card held above the flower has many orange and pink letter D’s, while the card in Fig. 2d has a black stripe, small words, and a “Ucard” logo. The cards are being held on opposite sides of the image in each picture, the left in Fig. 1d and the right in Fig. 2d. The flower takes up more of the image in Fig. 2d, while Fig. 1d  includes some background of the plant.

In panel A, the major difference between the two figures is that the flower at the center of Fig. 1a is not present in the Fig. 2a. In Fig. 1a, the leaves of the plant are shown sharply, with defined edges. In Fig. 2a, the leaves are slightly blurred at the edge, resulting in a less clean looking image. The flower in Fig. 1b has a formed circular shape, whereas the flower in Fig. 2b is less shapely, with petals sticking out at edges.

The two figures appear to feature different trees. The large tree in figure 1 has a large gash facing the camera, while the tree in figure 2 does not. The growth pattern of the branches is also different between the two trees. It can also be observed that the background behind the trees is different in the two images.

In figure 2, long shadows can be seen in the photograph which can not be seen in figure 1. In figure 2 the sky behind the tree is blue, but the sky in figure 1 appears white. This implies that the image in figure 1 was taken on a cloudy day, and the image in figure 2 was taken on a clear day. 

The two detail panels of figure 1 are very close and focused on details of a specific leaf and bark. In figure 2 however, the images are more zoomed out, showing more of the plant. It seems that the photographer of figure 1 got very close to the plant, whereas the photographer of figure 2 stayed further away.

Figure 1 was made cleanly with borders dividing each image, creating a rectangular figure. Figure 2 has all the images touching, and has edges ending at different spots, causing the figure to have an irregular shape. The labels of figure one contain more words and more detail than the labels in figure 2. From these observations, it can be inferred that the creater of figure 1 put more time and effort into creating the figure than did the creater of figure 2.