rmegarry's blog

Specific Aim: To sample each species of Ulmus present on the UMass Amherst campus,  and to survey them for leaf mining insects.

Approach and Analysis: This experiment aims to sample leaves from every available Elm on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. There are currently 293 Elms on campus, and 17 unique species. At least one of each Elm species will be searched for evidence of leaf miners by observing the lowest branches of the tree. All observed leaf miners will be removed from the infected tree as well as a healthy uninfected leaf in close proximity. The location of the Elm will be marked, and the leaves will be cataloged for further analysis. 

    Specific Aim: To categorize infected leaves and identify factors related to the predation of 

infected leaves.

    Approach and Analysis: After obtaining a collection of infected leaves, we intend to 

measure the symmetry of each leaf from the mid rib. We intend to collect four width measurements every fifth of the way up the leaf from the base. We will measure from the outside leaf edge to the edge of the midrib on both the infected and uninfected leaves. We will also count the amount of veins, and the average distance between veins, on each side of the mid rib. This data will be analyzed for trends involving predation, the entry site of the miner, and the relative symmetry of each leaf in comparison to the ignored leaves.

Specific Aim 2.To categorize infected leaves and identify factors related to the predation of infected leaves. The literature suggests that leaf miners have a specific oviposition tendency based upon the structure of the leaf (Apape 1995). As we collect data on the leaf miners, we want to confirm this phenomenon while also analyzing for other contributing factors.  

With the recent viral epidemic wiping out our canine companions, I offer the best selection possible for our single use vaccine. The American Pit Bull is the only choice worth considering the use of this medicine on. First, we need to consider the viability of the dog breed itself. Pit bulls are a short hair breed which makes them comfortable in warm climates. With human intervention, these dogs can sport cold weather gear to help adapt to frigid climates as well, making them viable in most temperature ranges, and allowing anyone to own them once the population becomes large enough. The American Pit Bull is also a mid to large sized dog, which allows for it to become a reliable service dog. According to an article at servicedogcertifications.org, The Pit Bull is capable of assisting with even the most strenuos of tasks, such as pulling a wheel chair. Pit Bulls are often looked upon with fear because of the misinformation that surrounds them. Pit Bulls are involved in a large amount of attacks on humans, however, they are also trained as gaurd dogs which makes them more likely to be involved in defensive scenarios. According to an article on therapypet.com, thier aggressive nature stems from the love they have for their owners, which is the same love that makes them safe around children, and loyal companions. The breed lives on average 12-16 years, which gives allows for the Pit Bull to undergo more mating cycles, allowing the population to recover faster. Overall, the only dog breed capable of surviving both extreme cold and heat, providing physical work, offering endless amounts of love, and with an acceptably long life cycle, the American Pit Bull is the only dog breed that is capable of filling in for the entire species.

Science requires specificity and clarity in order to be properly understood and replicated. For a scientific study to be recognized, the work must be able to be replicated with the same results. This facet of scientific research places importance on the record of how the research in any paper was performed.

----This is the introduction of the introduction section so its general short and to the point. Since Ive noticed its a common suggestion, the last sentance does actually transition to the next paragraph about recording process.
 

Specific Aims Working Draft

Overall objective: To select different Ulmus species for sampling on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus in order to obtain data on the leaf mining insects that infest them, as well as to help understand the oviposition habits of these insects.

Specific Aim 1. To sample each species of Ulmus present on the UMass Amherst campus, and to survey them for leaf mining insects. In the preliminary work, leaf miners were found inhabiting a resistant Ulmus americana. This leaf miner is likely to be Stigmella Mulltispicata, however, they are only known to predate on Ulmus pumila. We will attempt to screen a sample of each Ulmus species on campus in order to assess the level of predation and locate possible factors.

Specific Aim 2. 

In science, a study must be reproducible in order to be considered valid. As part of a Junior Writing Class, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project to understand what affects the reproducibility of experiments. I looked to create a complex multi-panel figure, write the methodology, have a different person carry out the methods, record the differences, and identify factors that may have contributed to the differences observed. Certain aspects, such as the composition of the figure, were highly documented and detailed, while others, such as equipment used and general details of how the photo was taken, were left out or poorly described. Of the 26 recorded differences, 4 were caused by a change to the experiment site, 5 were attributed to the difference in equipment used, 2 were caused by a lack of description, and the remaining 15 were caused by descriptive or interpretive differences.

Authors Note - My only qualm it the ending I feel like it stops suddenly but since its not an English paper.. I feel like its supposed to?
 

In science a study must be reproducible in order to be considered valid. As part of a Junior Writing Class, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project to understand what affects the reproducibility of experiments. I looked to create a complex multi-panel image, write the methodology, have someone carry out the methods, record the differences, and identify factors that may have contributed to the differences observed. Certain aspects, such as the composition of the figure, were highly documented and detailed, while others, such as equipment used and general details of how the photo was taken, were left out or poorly described. Of the 26 recorded differences, 4 were caused by a change to the expirement site, ....

RESEARCH DESIGN

• Systematically check elm trees throughout campus, develop a sampling system perhaps look at all the leaves on a set number of branches and categorize activity that way? I saw a paper that deemed it necessary to rate the leaves locations from the trunk should we define sections either fractionally or with set distance and catalog that information as well?

• Sample leaves for surface area/ density with procedure from Walczak, which had density weighed on leaves next to leaf miners as to get pre infected values

• Note leaf symmetry on any infected leaf? You have both read that paper and I have not but I feel like we should just be cataloging infected leaves in their general properties as they are the ones that got infected presumably for their structure

• Catalog all data and look to see relationships if any for the various leaf miners and trees?

   

  SPECIFIC AIMS

  To collect data on leaf miners infesting elm trees, this would include trying to identify them in the book, and cataloging them

  To collect general data on elm leaves, this is probably mostly through literature, however, we can still go and make observations 

  To try and discern the causes behind the different leaf miners, with specific interest on the stigmella multispicata and the trees it may or may not have affected, this includes the different types of elms but we may also consider searching the nearby trees for evidence of the miner as well

   

Discussion Drafting

    The replicate figure was an interesting blend of similarity and differences. It appeared that while specificity was important, the careful construction and preservation of the experiment, and experimental area, was far more important. 

The most detailed section of the methods was creation of the overall figure, and very specific elements of certain panels. The figure was recreated in a similar manner with three minor differences, however, the differences were largely caused by an error in documentation rather than the interpretation of the reader. While the lettering boxes were smaller, with smaller lettering, the size of the lettering was incorrectly specified at 25% of the original value. The boxes are much smaller, however, it is likely that either one box was used and quartered, which would be consistent with the letter size change and still look pleasing aesthetically, or that a different unit was used. 

The most notable change in the recreation is the health of the plant, and the background of the experimental area. The weed was located in the center of a loosely coiled garden hose. The hose was likely dragged to whatever location it was used in, and was likely pulled over the weed. This destroyed the integrity of the weed changing elements such as the neighboring uninfected leaves, the color of the weed as it lay dying, and total viewing area of the weed which originally obscured the environment behind it. As the photographs are the main component of the figure, the destruction of the experimental area caused differences over a much larger area of the total figure.

Most other differences were likely caused by issues with specificity and clarity of the directions. In panel A the parts of the hand that were specified were close to the positions in the original photo. The ring and pinky finger were not specified, and were not close to the original position in the photo, as well as how much of the hand was present and what angle it was at. In panel C the frame of the photo has shifted slightly, which was likely due not specifying only the edge of the reference card was visible. This shifted the photo to allow the full view of the card. The hand is also under the card as opposed to gripping the edge. This is caused by an unforeseen interpretation of how to keep the hand out of the photo. 

The large contributing factor was likely due to the difference in equipment available. I had not given much thought to the equipment used to take the photo, or the objects used in the photos. Some compositional errors may have occurred due to the differences in the camera’s used. If the photos were not taken or imported with the same dimensions and resolution, then compression, stretching, or other quality issues may have occurred. This is most notable with panel D, as the map used had to be stretched in the original, but appears to have been fine for use in the replicate.

The rest of the differences are located in the corresponding panels. All panels in the replicate are where they were intended to be, and as a result all panels correspond to their labels. In panel A much more of the hand holding the plant is visible, as well as the thumb, ring finger, and pinky being in different positions. The photo for panel A is taken at a different angle, shows more of the surrounding, and includes the wall of the building. The photo for panel B also shows more of the surrounding area, and the wall is positioned diagonally through the corner of the photo as opposed to straight. Panel C showcases a card of different color and size, and its entirety can be seen in the photo. The weed is much darker, and the galleries are also much more visible. The position of the leaf is also shifted to the right side of the photo. The map used for panel D is at much less of a magnification, allowing more of the area to be seen, and is not as stretched.