Brandon Eddy

^{Brandon Eddy}

^{March 5, 2008}

^{Biol. 3920}

^{2.  Read the article thoroughly, giving particular attention to items "a" through "o" in the outline below; address (respond) to each individually:}

^{a.  continuity and consistency of "chain of events," i.e. sticking to order of events;}

  The “flow” of the paper was smooth.  Everything was ordered and their arrangement of the facts was well placed.

^b.^{how well does the Title describe what the paper is really all about;}

The title was very accurate.

^c.^{in the Introduction, does the Literature Cited effectively lead the reader to the Objective [Hypothesis] statement;}

  The literature that was used was relevant and added to the introduction.

^d.^{how many citations are given in the Introduction and do they "support" the Objective statement (list the number);}

  There were twenty-nine instances of citations.  Many of them were citing the same papers numerous times.  They appear to all “support the Objective statement” or add needed information.

^e.^{is the Objective statement thorough and specific;}

        Very.

^f.^{is the Methods & Materials section logically arranged, complete, and supported by literature references;}

  The Methods & Materials section was easy to follow, informative, complete and contained supporting literature references.

^g.^{could you repeat the experiment/study in its entirely by following the procedures given in the Methods & Materials;}

        If I were given the proper equipment, yes.

^h.^{are the Results arranged/organized to follow the same order of events as the Methods & Materials section;}

  I’m not sure that would apply to this study.  The results described were of data collections via the methods.  There isn’t really an order of events in the data.

^i.^{are the Results presented in a thorough and simple way... easy to follow/understand;}

  The results were easy to follow and/or understand.  They were well documented, described, and conveyed.

^j.^{are the graphics (Tables and Figures) prepared well, easy to understand and necessary;}

  The data tables were labeled and setup so that they are easily understood.  The figure presented gave me a visual as to what they were looking for as far as “foliage stability.”

^k.^{does the Discussion section really "discuss" the Results;}

  It discusses the results as related to previous studies, so… yes.

^l.^{does the Literature Cited in the Discussion include those used to "build" the arguments in the Introduction;}

  Yes, plus they introduced more literature that they found their results to differ from.

^m.^{do the references cited in the Discussion "support (agree)" or "not support (disagree)" with the Results;}

        Some do, some don’t.

^n.^{was the Objective met (do the research results support the objective); and}

  It appeared as though they were testing their own objective as well.  They found out that there was no significant proof that the stresses that were tested cause foliage instability.

^{o.  were the Literature Cited in the final section of the paper taken from "good" sources, i.e. peer reviewed}

^{journals, and were they recent (dated within one year of publishing the paper)?}

By their names, most of the sources seem to be upstanding, peer reviewed journals.  All but a few were recent to the publishing of the paper.

^{3.  Once you have "digested" the scientific article and answered each item listed above, prepare a written}

^{review following the outline below:}

Critique

Reviewed by Brandon Eddy

Student of Botany, Biology Dept., TTU, Cookeville, TN

The Effect of Nutrient Stress on Developmental Instability in Leaves of Acer Platanoides (Aceraceae) and Betula Pendula (Betulaceae)

Sanna Black-Samuelsson and Stefan Andersson

American Journal of Botany 90(8): 1107-1112

Overview:

The objective of the study was to compare the expression of developmental stability/instability in two varied environments (one of which the plants were subjected to nutritional stresses). After several weeks the plants were to be sampled and tested for foliage symmetry as an indicator of nutrition deficiency. The study found that foliage symmetry (in their case) was not an indicator of nutrient deficiency stresses.

Critique:

The paper itself was very well written and developed in general. The transitions between sections and within the sections themselves were seamless and easy to follow. The procedures carried out were described so that almost anyone could reproduce the experiment. The results, though they may not have gone as planned, added to “our” scientific knowledge and may benefit future endeavors in this field of study.

Completeness:

The paper was not lacking in any sense (that would have most likely been caught in the peer reviewing phase). The objective was met, but more than likely did not turn out as expected.

Problems:

Personally I would not “pack” so many citations into anything other than a text book. It seemed like every other sentence in the introduction/discussion was citing something that someone else wrote/studied. Then again I guess that’s the point…

Benefits:

Foliage symmetry was found to be a poor indicator of plant stability for members of the Maple and Birch tree families.

Additional Research:

I believe that this more or less closed the book on trying to use foliage symmetry as an indicator of plant stability for these two families.