Discussion Section Draft

Submitted by benjaminburk on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 17:51

The differences observed between the two figures could be attributed to multiple factors. The fact that figure 2 contained a flower with hints of white and Figure 1 did not is most likely because the flowers pictured in the respective figures are not the same flower. The varying sizes of flowers in panel A of Figure 1 versus panel B of Figure 2 or panel B of Figure 1 versus panel A of Figure 2, means that the pictures were taken from a closer location, were taken with a larger zoom or were taken with a different type of camera all together.

The overall construction of the figure, the color of the shading, the lack of arrows, panel label colors and what appears to be the switch of the close up of the flower and the far shot of the plant, in Figure 2 versus Figure 1 can simply be attributed to the lack of explanation of how to construct the figure in the methods section.

Lateralization of Olfaction in the Honeybee Apis mellifera

Submitted by malberigi on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 17:24

The authors covered the right antennae of one group, the left antennae of another group, and left the final group of bees’ antennae uncovered.  They quantified the bees’ ability to smell by extension of the bees’ proboscis when conditioning them.  There were two experiments to test for lateral differences in olfactory learning.  One version conditioned the bees to extend their proboscis when a scent was experienced and the other version conditioned bees to extend their proboscis to one scent but not another.  The predictions for the first experiment was that one of the groups that had one of their antennae covered would preform worse than the other covered group and uncovered control group for scent detection.  The predictions for the second experiment were similar in that one of the covered groups would preform worse than the other covered group or uncovered control group in scent discrimination.

Karlstrom Lab

Submitted by mglater on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 16:40

    Dr. Rolf Karlstrom is a professor in the biology department at UMass Amherst. Since 1999, he has has performed research in his lab using the model species of the zebrafish. The research done in the lab covers many different subjects, with the overarching topic being the study of developmental neurobiology. The lab studies both larval and adult zebrafish brains to answer questions about how and why the brain forms in the way it does. The lab studies many different genes which influence the development of the brain. One of the main focuses of the lab is looking at the Hedgehog genes, specifically Sonic Hedgehog (Shh). The lab has published papers in the past detailing some of the ways Shh effects brain development, and is still today looking to answer further questions about the gene.

 

Intro Para 1

Submitted by nchenda on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 16:10

It is important in science for scientists to reproduce the same results that were obtained by the researcher. The purpose of the methods section is for another to obtain the same results as that person did by following their steps. These steps are the methods the person uses in order to get their results. When developing these steps, scientists must be able to identify factors needed to be controlled when doing the experiment. This requires scientists to distinguish between observation and inference. This is so that the experiment is successful and there will be no need to perform it differently multiple times.

 

Abstract

Submitted by nchenda on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 16:09

This project includes the process of creating a methods for another person to follow in order to obtain the same results when creating the same figure. The figure has to be of a type of flowering plant. Each figure has to have 3 panels that include an image of the plant itself, a close-up of the flower or flowers of the plant, and a map of the native origins of the plants. The project results in differences between the figures created. The differences include the objects visible in the images and the exposure of the images. These results indicate there are factors that lead to the differences. The factors include the type of camera and the level of specificity in the methods.

Blarney weekend

Submitted by michaelkim on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 15:23

How does alcohol affect our bodies? Well I found out the bad way this weekend by drinking way too much. According to the study done by NIH, alcohol has an effect on your brain, heart, liver, pancreas, and most of your immune system. It is crazy to think and know that many college students knowing that alcohol is bad for us still decide to drink every weekend. Alcohol interferes with your brain's communication pathways and it can also alter how your brain looks and works which I did not know about. Let's be real though, we go to the Zoo for a reason. I definitely do however have to cut back on it because I feel like I function way slower than I normally do which is bad.

Methods project Results and discussion

Submitted by michaelkim on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 15:16

I didn’t write how many pictures I had taken and what it consisted of in my methods. My original had 4 pictures as my partner only had 3 which is the main or the biggest difference. I included the name of the plant and my partner didn’t because I did not specify which picture I had used. Also, I didn’t write where I was standing or the position of where the picture was taken and what part of the plant I took a picture of. A is the zoomed in picture of the blossom of the tree in both figures but different blossom was used due to the lack of my description of which blossom it exactly was. Also, the fonts and the size of the fonts used to letter each panels are different. Figure 1 and 2 both have text boxes around the letters yet Figure 1 has a lighter background compared to the darker background in the Figure 2. B in Figure 1 is the name of the plant as B in FIgure 2 is the zoomed out version of the tree with its blossom. C in Figure 1 is the zoomed out picture of the plant or tree itself just like the B in Figure 2 however C in Figure 2 is the map of where the plant comes from. Due to its mismatch in the numbers of the pictures used, Figure 1 has the letter D that shows the map of where the plant comes from just like the Figure 2 C. The location and the position altered the picture that was taken for Figure 1 and 2. Also, the fact that many flowers including my own flower I have chosen were harvested at Durfee conservatory did not help the case of replicating the same figures. Many other factors are included such as the camera that was used, lighting of the room, lack of directions, and arrows.

methods intro 2

Submitted by liamharvey on Sun, 03/04/2018 - 14:11

The flowering plant selected was Camellia Japonica. C. Japonica was selected as it was a large tree and was in the first room of the Durfee Conservatory. Ease of access to the subject of the experiment seemed to be an important factor as it would be difficult to replicate the methods if the person following them could not find the plant. Also, this experiment was performed in the winter, so using flowering plants outside was out of the question. Choosing a plant in the Durfee Conservatory meant that the plant would be there for the replicator in the same location and in a location easy to find.

 

Monthly Report

Submitted by mglater on Sat, 03/03/2018 - 23:31

What I have done in the lab so far has been mainly learning how to do different procedures. Most of what I have done so far has been dissecting fixed larva, mounting the brains on slides, and imaging them. I have done some work with analyzing the images by counting cells. I have also recently learned the procedure for the dissection of adult fish which is being performed for the Atlas project.

                My goals for next month are to continue developing my skills at dissection of larval and adult brains, and to work on getting data out of the images. I also hope to work out what I can do experimentally to help move the projects forward.

How to properly obtain citation using DOI

Submitted by michaelkim on Fri, 03/02/2018 - 14:13

 First, I went to the google scholar to find the article I was most interested in. Then, I clicked on "Cited by" right below the title of the article. Next step is to click on Get Full Text via UMLinks. Once I did that, I copied the whole link to go paste it to the Simple Text Query. I then typed in my email and then pasted it which gave me the DOI. With the given DOI, I pasted it to the bcrc.bio.umass.edu site where it says biblio, look up with DOI. Then it gave me the citation I needed which ended up like this,

Lo AYJim CYProtest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecological Economics [Internet]. 2015 ;114:58 - 66. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092180091500097Xhttp://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S092180091500097X?httpAccept=text/xmlhttp://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S092180091500097X?httpAccept=text/plain .

Pages

Subscribe to Writing in Biology RSS