Writing in Biology

In Panel A of both figures, the individual Goose is standing on snow. However, the backgrounds of Panel A in each figure differ. In Figure 1, the snow is the only background element visible. In Figure 2, there are other Geese and a tree in the background. Additionally, the Goose in Figure 1 is looking at the camera whereas the Goose in Figure 2 is eating. In Figure 1, the individual Goose is set more into the foreground of the panel than the Goose in Figure 2. The length of Panel A in Figure 1 is also longer than the length of Panel A in Figure 2. The widths of this panel across both figures is consistent.

As a part of the Writing in Biology class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in spring of 2019, I made a figure showing an interspecific interaction between moss and a tree. Using my methods, another student created a copy of my figure. 13 differences were found between the two photos. These differences were in terms of how the figures were photographed and how they were formatted. From these differences, I inferred that the species of tree is different in both figures, and that the trees were photographed at different locations. The differences also demonstrated that there are multiple ways to format the figures while still adhering to the method section guidelines.

Climate change has many consequences on marine life. Dr. Gobler and a team of researchers utilized data on changes in ocean temperature and growth of toxic algae in order to determine if there was a relationship. The two algae that were studied were Alexanderium Fundyense and Dinophysis Acuminate. At high concentrations, these algae are harmful and have the potential to cause diarrhetic, paralytic, and shell-fish poisoning illnesses. Gobler and his team of researchers focused on a three aspects of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB’s): duration, abundance, and distribution along the North Pacific and North Atlantic. Along the North Atlantic, they found that the annual growth rate of the two species of algae increased. They also found that the duration of the bloom season increased. Along the North Pacific, the trends were less pronounced, however, there was still a significant increase in the amount of algal blooms and duration of bloom season. This most likely occurred because the study was conducted from 1982 until present, and in that time period the Pacific showed less warming than the Atlantic. The findings of this study demonstrate that as ocean temperatures rise, there will be an increase in the intensity and duration of algal blooms.

In this experiment, we explored how to identify a dog’s breed from extracting samples of the target dog as well as studying dog genomes by genotyping. A sample of the dog’s hair was obtained along with a buccal swab, which was then synthesized by numerous methods. We used methods of Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), lysis, sequencing and genotyping to analyze specific alleles linked to coat color such as MC1R, Agouti and TYRP1. These alleles have all shown correlation of coat color in dogs. Examination of the DNA markers in the dog’s genome made it possible to associate the results of sequencing to a specific coat color of the dog.

During the spring semester of 2019 at the University of Massachusetts amherst, I began the methods project. The goal of this project was to be able to construct a multi panel figure and write a set a methods of how we created it and then have another individual try to replicate it and compare the differences. For my Figure, the interspecies interaction I chose was between a tree and some Ivy growing up its trunk. Once both figures were constructed I began my analysis on how my methods could be improved for higher accuracy. I broke these differences down into two different categories, differences with how the pictures were taken and differences with how the figure was constructed. For the Pictures I found several differences including the tree species used, the location, the lack of Ivy present, the size of the subject in the photo and the snow on the ground. From these differences I inferred that they were caused by a lack of listing a specific species, a lack of an accessible subject, a difference in the distance from the subject and the weather before the subject was photographed. For the construction of the figures I found differences with the labeling of the pictures, the lack of descriptions, the size of the photos, and the Arrow placement and size. From these differences I inferred that they were caused by a lack of specificity in the instructions for creating the figure. From this comparison, I was able to see many aspects of writing methods that I needed to improve on in order to have a methods that gives an accurate replica of my original work.

The first difference mentioned between the layout of the figures is the difference between the labeling of the pictures in the figure. This difference was because due to a lack of specific instructions for what to label each picture in the the methods. For the lack of descriptions in the replica, the methods only instructed to create a text box for the description not to actually fill it out with descriptions. The difference with the size of the pictures is most likely due to slightly different camera resolutions. The last difference results from there being no Ivy in the pictures to label, as a result the arrow placement for the arrows labeling Ivy.

The fact that the trees in the pictures look completely different is that they are different tree species. This difference came from a lack of scientific naming in the methods resulting in it being impossible for the replicator to determine the species of tree I originally shot. The lack of Ivy on the tree in the replica is most likely due the area that our specimen being too far away to be accessed by the replicator. While the original example was on campus and accessible, I decided to switch it out for a better example I found off campus resulting in the methods not explaining where one could find this interaction on campus. The difference in the background can be explained by the difference in the weather when the pictures were taken. In the original there is was very little snow in the pictures due to the pictures being taken after a couple of warm days while the replicate was taken after heavy snowfall. The difference in the size of the trees was most likely due to the photo being taken at different distances. Since the replicate is a different tree in a different location, the replicate tree was not able to photographed from up close due to the snow around it. This factor also resulted in the difference of the angle in the shot since it would be impossible to capture the specimen from a much greater distance using the same angle that I had used in the original.

The samples treated with RNase only displayed the band of DNA while the samples untreated with RNase displayed a band of DNA and a band of much smaller RNA further from the wells. . From this we can conclude that the RNA contained within the extraction was eliminated in the RNase-treated samples.

For the sample treated with RNase, the ratio of the absorbance at 260 nm divided by the reading at 280 nm was lower than the expected 1.8 at 1.26, indicating that the DNA extraction was not very pure and may have contained contaminants. The sample not treated with RNase had a ratio of 2.08, which indicates the DNA was contaminated with RNA, which has a larger ratio than pure DNA. The concentration after eliminating RNA with RNase was 0.2590 µg/µL, meaning there was 12.95 µg of DNA present in the original 50 µL extraction solution.

Strangely, the concentration of nucleic acids was 259.0 ng/µL for the DNA treated with RNase, which is higher than the 200.7 ng/µL concentration of DNA untreated with RNase. The concentration is expected to be lower once the RNA is eliminated. This can be due to a unequal dividing of the genomic DNA before treating one sample with RNase.

          In James Cameron's film, Avatar, an alien tribe on the distant planet of Pandora fights the human invaders bent on mining their forest home. In The Nature of Things episode, titled The Real Avatar, the indigenous people of the Cordillera del Condor area of Peru face a similar predicament, as they fight against the Peruvian government and private mining and oil interests to defend their home, in an effort to preserve both biodiversity and their traditional way of life. Though there had been a previous agreement between the tribe and the government to establish a protected conservation area, the election of a new president, Alan García, led to the passage of new laws to open that land to privatization and development in the name of profit. These decrees disregarded the prior promises made to the indigenous people, and instead granted access to corporations, including a Canadian mining company and an American oil company. According to environmental scientists, these extraction activities threaten to pollute the area. The mountain range where many of these private development projects are meant to take place overlaps with a portion of the Amazon Rainforest, and also acts as the sources from which rivers flow. The local tribes rely on these ecological features, traditionally viewing their environment as a living thing which provides for them and which they must protect. Though the tribes have engaged in impassioned protests against the actions of corporate interests, the continued lobbying by mining, oil, and other companies for permission to exploit the resources of the tribal lands has thus far won out against the pleas of the indigenous people and the concerns raised by environmental scientists.

Bones in birds are hollow structure to minimize the weight. In the cross section, it can be seen how dense the bone is. The same goes for the mouth, instead of having a jaw with teeth, birds have teethless bills. The evolution of birds from reptile has always aimed one goal: flight. The muscle structure of birds are robust and flexible to let the wing generate energy to fly. The triangular system of strut is a structure that prevents chest bones from crushing during flight. Wings are what is known as forelimbs for mammals and birds do have fingers too. However most bone structures found in other organisms are fused in birds. Birds rely more on the muscle and the tendons to support their body to control fine flight adjustments.