srabbitt's blog

Abstract:

Background: The Stigmella multispicata was observed for the first time in Russia in 2014. There has been confirmed observations in the US but only in Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila). 

Need: Is this parasite yet another predator of the American Elm (Ulmus americana).

Research: Conformation of the presence of S. multispicata in U. americana by collecting leaves with leafminer activity that is consistant with the S. multispicata. Collect sample larve that can be incubated/grown in a labratory environment into adult form. Confirm that the tree is infact an U. americana. 

Significance: This would be the first observed and confirmed instance of S. multispicata in an U americana.

      In response to the discovery of a leafminer Stigmella multispicata, in an American elm tree. This leafminer had only been observed in Siberian elm's to this point in the US. I began researching if there are enough similarities to the two trees but have not found anything that is very useful. The American elm is a large tree that grows from 65 to 100 feet tall and has dark green leaves that are 3 to 7 inches long(https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/trees/handbook/th-3-113.pdf). The Siberian elm is a smaller tree that grows from 25 to 50 feet tall with leaves that are 3/4 to 3 inches long(https://www.inhs.illinois.edu/research/vmg/sibelm/) Both trees have similar bark texture and color. Both trees seem to be highly susceptible to disease and insect damage. Both species tolerate poor soils and road salt which makes them popular shade trees to plant along roadways. At this point with my limited knowledge I cannot find anything definite to link the two trees to this species of leafminer. Further research is necessary for this topic. 

This was a study about the importance of effective writing in the scientific community. This research was conducted to see if I could write a methods section that someone else could follow and replicate a multi panel figure that I had created. This was done by using only the written portion of a methods paragraph. The person attempting to recreate the figure had not previously seen the original figure. The replicate figure done in this study had many differences due to details that were left out in the description of the figure design. Although the figures had many differences the overall design was similar and leafminer activity was evident

The separation of results and discussion has proven to be confusing for me. I have had to change my way of looking at things. Scanning a image for differences is much different scientifically then it is for a challenging puzzle. Learning these things is has been a bit challenging. This has me trying to retrain myself on how I see and interpret things. An example of how my thought process needs to change it regarding the images of plants in the methods experiment. I said that plants are different thinking that it was a fact when I needed to describe how the plants are different. So rather then a general all encompassing statement about an object I need to pull out specific details about what is different. Thankfully I have received a lot of assistance from my fellow students and the course instructors in point theses things out. Throughout my adult life I have worked on getting things done as fast as possible. Blasting through things quickly and effeicently was always a source of pride for me. Now I see that I most likely missed a lot of details in the process. 

      The study of leaf miner activity conducted was on a brassicaceous plant called a nasturtium (Tropaeolum). A common leaf miner found on these plants are the larvae of the syn. S. apicalis Hardy. The female lays eggs on the leaf and once it hatches it burrows into the layers of the leaf and consumes the mesophyll of the host leaf. Sometimes the leaf is killed, but the rest of the plans is often unaffected. Once the larvae have matured it exits the leaf by chewing itself free and drops to the ground where it pupates it to an adult. They have several generations per year from April to September.

Manuscript submission for this journal has rules that need to be followed. All submissions need to be in English. Brittish or American is not important as long as the writing is consistant. Doubble spacing in a normal font like 10 point Times New Roman. All submitted work has to be original unpublished work. Permissions need to be obtained for all preiviously published documents. Tables numbered usins arbic numerals and in consuctive numarical order. Please put a title explaining the componants of the table. Cite references in the text by name and year in parentheses. Reference lists should only contiain works that are cited in text and have been preiviously published. No foot notes or end notes. To upload your maunscript authouthors should follow the "Submit Online" link found on the home page.    

      There were 8 differences between the original and replicate figures that I noted. 1: The plant that was the subject of the original study was a garden nasturtium. The Replicate study was done using a long leaf plant that I cannot identify. 2: The scale image sizes were taken at different focal positions. This makes the replicate image have less detail than the original. 3: The central map position was not alike in the two figures. 4: The original was a broader scope and the replicate was much narrower and did not have the same center. 5: The figures were identified with lowercase letters in the original however the replicate used uppercase. The 6: The order of the figures was not the same. The original “a” was the full plant picture, “b” was the close-up showing the leafminer activity accompanied by a dollar bill for scale reference, and “c” was the map of the location that the study was conducted. The replicate “A” was the close-up with the dollar bill used for scale, “B” was the full plant photo, and “C” was the map of the study location. 7: The color and direction of the arrow pointing to the subject area were of different size, color and orientation. 8: Font sizes were different on the image labels. The original used a smaller (40) font and the replicate had approximately a 60. Although these studies were done on different plants I think the overall project was a success at documenting leafminer activity on the UMass campus.    

1. Wrong plant
2. Close up size
3. Map location
4. Map cropping
5. Lower case vs upper case for figure id
6. Out of order
7. Color of arrow
8. Font size

The biggest difference between the original and the replicate is the actual plant. I did name the plant with the hope that whoever was going to attempt my methods would be able to find it. Future projects perhaps I will use a latitude and longitude plus a description of the plant not just the type of plant. Next glaring difference between the two is the size of the plants in the image. This may have been due to different cameras or the distance from the subject the picture was taken. I should have specified the distance from the subject the camera was held plus the type of camera that was used. The map sizes and subject area are also different. I suppose I could have described that in better detail too. The letters are different sized. The original was lower case while the replicate was upper case. I failed to mention this in my methods paper. The replicate is missing an arrow pointing at the area that the leafminer activity was observed. This was in the methods paper however it was overlooked for some reason. The font and color is the same for the image labels at least. The position of the dollar bill was not consistent between the original and replicate. This too was not clear in the paper describing how the images were selected. It is difficult to get someone to duplicate your pictures by simply describing how you did it. The paper had a lot of detail describing how the panel was made, but not enough detail about the where and how the images were produced. I think that a third set of eyes would have been beneficial to assist with the editing of the paper. The order that the panels were organized could have been better. After looking at it I think that it may have been better if I labeled the map as “a”, then the full plant as “b”, and the final close up as “C”. This would have given it a zooming in flow that would have been easier to describe. A better description of the positioning of the dollar bill would have eliminated the guesswork for that piece too. This was a great lesson on how much different individual perceptions really are.

            Effective scientific writing and communication is a complicated process. In the readings I have learned that passive voice can be used with an active voice if it helps to bring clarity to the statement. First person is the new standard because it helps to engage the reader, making it less “dry”. Flow and continuity are very important, so you do not lose your reader’s interest. This is accomplished by keeping your sentences organized and consistent. If your reader is constantly confused about the point that you are trying to make, they will most likely lose interest in your written paper and not read about your research. Simplify what you can and avoid using large confusing words that may take away from the point that you are trying to make. It is a way to show the hard work that you have accomplished, not the incredible depth of your vocabulary.