You are here

Methods PP

Submitted by mglater on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 16:46

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.

 

Post:

Comments

The middle paragraphs seem a bit confusing, using the phrase "based off of the fact that the images of the flower appear so different..." can be more consice and clear, leads to a bit of a word scramble. 

The sentence "this was the result of  a variable which was not controlled for, public access to the plant" does not make sense. Remove the comma and rephrase more simply to say, "Public access to the plant was a variable that was not accounted for".