Blogs

     Male manakins are most popularly known for the “moonwalk” dance in order to attract potential female partners. This unique and amusing type of dance plays a crucial role in attracting a female manakins. The dance mainly consists of movements and sounds which includes fast movements up and down the branch (the “moonwalk”), snapping their wings to make noise, shooting between his perch and his surroundings, flying in circles around then swooping, and finally spinning to reveal their bright yellow legs. By utilizing this behavior, they attract potential mating partners, and the variations in the mating dance is what causes attraction in females. These variations can be observed and recorded, and behavioral flow charts can then be constructed to determine what specific variations cause female attraction, as well as what causes attention retention to increase in females.

Male manakins are most popularly known for the “moonwalk” dance in order to attract potential female partners. The behaviors and actions of male manakins play a crucial role in attracting a female manakins. The red capped manakins have a unique and amusing type of dance. It mainly consists of movement and sounds which include: fast movement up and down the branch (“moonwalk”), snapping his wings to make noise, shooting between his perch and his surroundings, flying in circles around then swooping, and also spinning to reveal their bright yellow legs. By utilizing this behavior, they attract potential mating partners, and their variations in the mating dance is what attracts females. These variations can be observed and recorded, and then behavioral flow charts can be constructed in order to better understand what specific variations causes female attraction, as well as what causes attention retention in females.

The first multi-panel scientific figure, Figure 1, was the figure in which the Methods section was based on. The second multi-panel scientific figure, Figure 2, was constructed using the Methods section provided. Both figures were constructed using Microsoft Word. Additionally both figures portray the parasitic interaction between the English Ivy (Hendera helix) and the Sweet Olive tree (Osmanthus fragrans) found inside the Durfee Conservatory located on the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Four main observational differences were observed between Figure 1 and Figure 2. First, Figure 2 is significantly darker in color than the original figure. Although they both contain a yellow-tinted background, the replicate Figure 2 displays a dark yellow, orange color. In contrast, I observed a light, yellow-beige color in Figure 1.

The photographs in Figure 2 have a different tone of natural light shining on the plants, the light is more apparent and golden, casting shadows. In Figure 1, the natural lighting in the photographs display a more bright, constant lighting throughout the photos without casting any shadows. Additionally in Figure 2 the arrows used on the photo “parasitism” are both angled horizontally, pointing towards the left direction. In contrast, in Figure 1 in the “parasitism” photo, the two arrows are facing opposite directions.The blue arrow is pointing in the right direction and the red arrow is pointing in the left direction. The arrows in Figure 1 have a shorter width than the arrows in Figure 2. Finally in Figure 1 the photographs size ~3.9” in height by a ~3.1” width, however in Figure 2, the size of the photographs are significantly less than this size range.

The two multi-panel scientific figures created by the original student and the second student showed several observational differences. Upon initial observation, the replicate figure is significantly darker in color than the original figure. Although they both display a yellow-tinted background color, the replicate figure has a dark yellow-orange color, while the original figure has a light, yellow-beige color background. Similarly, both figures contain the three essential images of the interaction between the Sweet Olive tree and the English Ivy. The first photo is taken of the English Ivy strand, the second of the Sweet Olive tree, and the third photo captures both species interacting with one another from a farther distance. All three photos of the replicate figure capture nearly-identical images of the original figure. However, in the replicate photos, the sun appears to be setting, as the sun is setting at a different angle than in the original photos. Additionally, the arrows used on the third photo to signify the two species from the replicate photo are both pointing towards the left direction. To contrast, in the original photo the blue arrow is pointing in the right direction and the red arrow is pointing in the left direction. The text above the actual photos is identical in both figures. However the photos in the replicate figure appear to be significantly smaller in comparison to the original figure.

    It’s interesting to note that society views different relationships as “odd” compared to others that seem “normal”. For example, a relationship between a 28 year old and a 16 year old seems odd to a lot of people, while a relationship between a 48 year old and a 36 year old does not seem as weird. But why is that the case? The two relationships are the same ages apart, yet the former seems more “odd”. Another example is an 18 year old and a 38 year old, compared to a 52 year old and a 32 year old. Again the former seems a lot more odd compared to the latter. You can even compare a 14 year old dating an 18 year old, versus a 21 year old dating a 25 year old. Of course this last one is illegal due to things such as grooming, but the same age difference applies. The reason why some of these relationships seem odd compared to others is due to the point in life each person is at. When two people are in similar points in life, for them to date does not seem odd from the viewer. A 14 year old and an 18 year old are two very different points of life. One is about to leave middle school, while the other is about to enter university or is working. A 52 year old and a 32 year old are both adults most likely working on their careers looking to settle down if they haven’t already. To pair two people who are at two different stages of life, causes dissonance that can make us uncomfortable.

If a skull belongs to O. Diprotodontia one way to immediately separate out two families from the rest is to look at the size of the skull: F. Petauridae and F. Acrobatidae are both types of flying-squirrel-like creatures that have the smallest skulls out of all the diprotodont orders we looked at in lab. The difference between them is that F. Petauridae has a squamosal bone (back part of the zygomatic arch) that has honeycomb-like holes in it, whereas F. Acrobatidae does not. To identify the rest of the order, looking at the angular process can help narrow down what family a skull belongs to: although most marsupials have a reflected angular process, there is one family that does not. This family is F. Phascolarctidae (koalas) which also has a long paroccipital process and selenodont teeth to accommodate its herbivorous diet. If the angular process is reflected, a possible next step is to look at the gap between the incisors and the molar row. This is called the diastema, and if it is large then it could belong to one of two families; either F. Macropodidae (kangaroos and their ilk) or F. Vombatidae (wombats). What distinguishes the two, aside from skull shape, is the fact that F. Vombatidae has 1/1 incisors—meaning that it only has one incisor on each side of its head both on the lower and upper jaw—while F. Macropodidae has 3 upper incisors that are blade-like and angled for cutting. This leaves three families, F. Pseudoceiridae, F. Phalangeridae, and F. Potoroidae, which all have similar skull shapes and sizes. F. Pseudocheiridae is the smallest, while F. Phalangeridae is the largest. F. Potoroidae and F. Phalangeridae both have enlarged premolars, however they differ in each family as they are angled outwards in F. Phalangeridae and in line with the molar row in F. Potoroidae. This leaves  F. Pseudoceiridae, which has no enlarged premolars and instead can be distinguished by its selenodont teeth.

In Spring 2019, as part of the Writing in Biology course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project in which I created a methods section for the construction of a multi-panel scientific figure, using photographs taken of an interspecific interaction involving parasitism. These methods were followed by a second student, and the observational differences between the original scientific figure and the replicated figure were recorded and compared. The purpose of this project was to observe differences in the two scientific multi-panel figures and identify the factors that caused them. I created a methods section that aimed to hold validity and  provide instruction for an experiment that could be easily replicated, while also investigating factors to control and distinguishing between observational differences and inferences. The controlled factors in this experiment were the type of software used to create the figures, time of the day, and seasonality.

As a class activity for the Biology Junior Writing course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the methods project was assigned to help students build their procedure writing skills. This is an essential part of scientific investigation because it enables scientists to replicate experiments accurately. Replicability aids in establishing the authenticity of findings made during scientific inquiry. Here, I observed and recorded the interspecific relationship between a tree and green lichens found near the roots of the tree. In thinking of what interspecific relationship to observe, I considered the mobility of the interaction. I knew it was important to choose two species that did not move from their point of primary observation. I also ensured that the interaction was in a common area of campus, such as behind the Morrill Science Center, for convenience and accessibility purposes. During the period of observation, the weather had to be taken into account. To this effect, I chose an interspecific interaction that was not affected by sudden changes in weather but remained apparent for a prolonged period of time. As a result, the interaction was observable at the time of replication.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) on the brain was used in attempt to find a way to allow stroke patients to recover their motor skills. Strokes are the leading cause of motor impairments in people. A stroke is caused by an interruption of blood supply to the brain. Depending on which part of the brain was affected their motor skills range in severity. Someone who had a stroke would have to go to physical therapy to regain the motor skills that they had before. Though everyone is different, on average a person would be limited for 8 years or more before they can regain their motor efficiency. TDCS would increase the synaptic plasticity, meaning it changes how the neurons are excited. The neurons would have a lower threshold, meaning that it would require less excitatory signals to send a signal. Which would allow the stroke patients to use less effort compared to a healthy human to send a signal for movement. When comparing stroke patients who went through TDCS and patients who did not, it was found that TDCS did not work as planned. The results showed that the retention of motor skills between the use of TDCS and not were equal. Memory of how to do the motor skill were not remembered, just like patients that did go through TDCS. Therefore, TDCS did not improve anything and would be unnecessary as a treatment for stroke patients.

The arms race between diseases and the human race will never end. It is something that  mankind will always have to find a way to cope with. There are certain measures we can take to slowdiseases down that we try and perfect every year. Viruses like the Flu though, are quickly evolving which makes it very hard to have and make vaccines to suppress them. (“The Escape of Pathogens: an evolutionary arms race”) It is important to keep trying to take these measures though as we must try and prevent as many people as possible from getting disease. The only way to do this is to study the evolutionary processes of these diseases so we are better equipped to fight them. It is at least known for bacteria that we can use anti-biotics to treat the diseases even though we constantly have to manipulate them; for viruses this is not the case. (“Antibiotic resistance: delaying the inevitable”) Antibiotics will not kill the viruses and this will just harm you in the long run by allowing it to flurish.