Perfect Paragraph

These past few days have been a blur. A few weeks ago it seemed like we had lots of time to finish our proposal and poster projects. Now it feels like I am running in circles, and getting absolutely nowhere. Monday, our group worked on the research proposal for 6 hours at the dining hall, then an additional 2+ hours at home. We managed to get a lot done, but every time I read through it, seems like we should add more or change something else. The abstract it seems, was the biggest bottleneck. It was a slow difficult task coming up with something that we could all agree on.  Some of the issues that we faced as a group where: is it too much information, or not enough. Not citing any resources but sounding credible. Lastly did it seem compelling. In the end we did develop something that seemed to touch all the necessary parts an abstract should have. Compressed courses like this are extremely fast paced and there is not a lot of time for discussion. Just have to hang in there for less than 24 hours then it will all be over. In the meantime, I will try my best to maintain focus, and turn out some quality work for both me and my team.

ABSTRACT

In July 2019, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Dr. Brewer discovered what appears to be Stigmella multispicata in an American Elm (Ulmus americanus). S. multispicata has only been observed in the leaves of the Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila)(Nieukerkin et al. 2018). We will identify the presence of S. multispicata in the Ulmus genus, with the exception of U. pumila. We will randomly select Elm trees on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus based on their location. Infested leaves will be collected for study and comparison. S. multispicata was first identified in 2014. There is a need for information on how S. multispicata will affect the Ulmus genus. Further research is required.         

This is the updated methods for what we did (or at least what I did)

Approach and Analysis

This experiment aims to sample leaves from every available Elm species on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. There are currently 293 Elms on campus, and 16 unique species (Beals). When considering unique species, the Smooth Leaf Elms, a and b, were considered one species, and spp. was ignored because the species cannot be identified. Two of each Elm species will be selected through the use of a random number generator. The selected Elms will be searched for evidence of leaf miners by observing any accessible branches of the tree. Once a leaf miner is found, a circular marking sticker will be placed on the leaf, the next 9 closest leaves will be documented for leaf miner presence, and the branch will be marked with flagging tape. A picture will be taken with the trees identification number, and with all ten leaves visible in the same plane of view. A second picture of the entire tree, with the flagged branch visible, and the trees designation number, will also be taken. After, the leaf with the median amount of leaf mines will be collected in a single use marked bag for further analysis. All observed leaf miner larva will be collected from the infected tree, and placed in the bag with the infected leaf.

The class period today was dedicated to analyzing  our leaf samples that we collected yesterday. Our group began to take measurements of the length of the leaf mines, but soon realized that it may not be necessary. Dr. Long recommended that we take a breath and sit down and try to determine what it is that we are trying to show with our data. So Ivan, Stefanie, and me sat down and began to hash out what it is we need from our data. Since we are only looking at mines that are only suspected of being Stigmella multispicata and nothing else we just need to determine what makes the mines on each leaf different, and what makes them the same. After looking at the leaves for a while Ivan noticed that none of the mines crossed the mid rib section of the leaf. This is important because that is one of the characteristics that the dichotomous key lists about S.multispicata. With that and a few more observations we came up with quantifiable measurements and observations that we could use to develop a results and discussion section. After a real slow start and several restarts the project is taking shape and looking good. I couldn't have asked for a better team to work with.

Today the class began collecting data for our project about the leaf-miner Stigmella Multispicata potentially moving hosts to new types of Elm. We started by breaking up into three groups of two with each pair having ten trees and ten leaves on each tree to locate and observe. In theory the methods for collecting the data was pretty straight forward to follow but once we actually got into the field my group started having issues right away. After getting the map situated on the phone we found the first two trees on our list which ended up being located in a completely blocked off construction zone. Since we couldn't get to them we decided to move down the list and were able to find three other sites pretty smoothily until about the sixth site with the trees being located decently away from eachother and the phone running the map the entire time the battery was getting too low to use. With the battery about to die we decided to head back to the classroom to mark the rest of our locations on a hard copy of the map. Once we got back to class and were finishing up the map it started to rain pretty heavily which put the data collection on hold until next class with hopefully better weather.

The studies that I have read about Stigmella multispicata have only been observed in siberian elms. So after class I drove up N Residential Drive to look at the 7 Siberian Elms that are growing there. I inspected each of the seven trees looking for linear mines in the leaves; this is the type of mine  S. multispicata has been reported to leave. After a thorough search I am confident that there is no evidence of leafminer activity on any of the seven siberian elm trees at that location. So this is leaving me with the question “where did the leafminer suspected of being S. multispicata originate from?

Leaf miners are made by a number of species of insects in which the larval stage eats the tissue of the plant. Leaf miners can be made by several different insects. Most leaf miner burrows or tunnels are referred to as serpentine mines, consisting of thin, winding, whitish trails, or as blotch mines which are broad and whitish or brownish in color. These mines may cause heavy infestations, causing the leaves and the entire plant to turn brown by late spring. They feed on the leaf tissue between the upper and lower surfaces of the leaf. Elm leaf miners are a pest that feed on the tissues in between the outer layers of elm leaves causing them to turn brown and the leaf to decay. Just because on leaf on the plant is affected does not mean that the whole plant is affected. Although, overtime this does change due to the amount of insects feeding on the leaves.

        This was an observational study about differences replicating an original figure by using only the methods section of a research paper. To develop this section photos were taken of a plant that showed leafminer activity. These images plus a map showing where photos were taken are used to create multi panel figure. The process of how and where the photos were taken were then used to develop a methods section of a research paper. This methods section was then given to another student to follow and create a figure based on the methods that were written.

In Summer of 2019, as part of a Junior level scientific writing class, I conducted a project to assess my skills in communicating scientific information to a fellow student. I created a multipanel figure of leafminer activity and another student recreated the multipanel figure by following my METHODS section. The differences were catalogued in my DISCUSSION section.  

       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)