New Abstract

       In summer 2019, as a part of the junior writing course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst I conducted a project about the importance of clearly written methods section for future researchers to be able to recreate your work in-order to be able to confirm or deny a hypothesis. Another student recreated the multi panel figure by using my methods section. Having no prior knowledge of what the original multi panel figure looked like, designed their figure based on the methods supplied. The replicate figure done in this study had 5 main differences observed between the replicate and the original figures. The differences were in the plant, with size type, color, shape, and location. Since the exact location of the plant was not clear there was too much left for the person replicating the figure to make their own choices. The images of the figure were not consistent because those too had no exact specifications. The location of center of the map was not were the original, this is due to the issue mentioned previously. The issues with in the leaf mines themselves were observed also. The original figure mines moved across veins of the leaves in random patterns however, the replicate mines were liner along the main vein of the leaf. The leaves being different types attracted different leafminer’s which have different feeding patterns. Most of the inconsistencies between the figure would not have occurred if there had been a clear and concise methods section. Writing the methods may be better done as the data is being collected and documented.     

(I coul really use some feedback on this)