1

Atiqa Chowdhury

Professor Rodwell

English 21007

March 3rd 2022

Comparing and Analyzing Lab Reports of Wheeler et. al (2015), Jiang et. al. (2013), and Grzlack et. al (2016)

The three lab reports chose all research on a certain animal or plant in arctic conditions and the correlation they can have in identifying future impacts of climate change. Phenological Mismatch with abiotic conditions-implications for flowering in Arctic plants, referred to as report 1, is on the relations between four arctic flowering plants and changing temperatures. Wheeler et al’s results allow them to deduce the implications of climate change on plants in the future. Similarly, Jiang et al’s paper Using pelagic ciliated microzooplankton communities as an indicator for monitoring environmental conditions under the impact of summer sea-ice reduction in the western Arctic Ocean referred to as report 2, observes microzooplankton in arctic fjords to interpret the correlation between environmental conditions and pelagic biodiversity. Grzelak et al’s paper Nematode biomass and morphometric attributes as biological indicators of local environmental conditions in Arctic fjords, referred to as report 3, does research on nematode communities and size in arctic sediment spaces to explore ways the factors are related. Report 1 has better methods organization than reports 2 and 3 but reports 2 and 3 have better abstracts. The organization creates a break from blocky text and an easy-to-follow report, but the concise abstracts of reports 2 and 3 make the essence of the paper more comprehensible.

This lab analysis will focus on three lab reports. Report 1, Phenological Mismatch with abiotic conditions-implications for flowering in Arctic plants, was written by Helen C. Wheeler, Toke T. Nøye, Niels Martin Schmidt, Jens-Christian Svenning, and Mads C. Forchhammer in 2015. The study analyzed flowering abundance and seasonal temperature patterns from the Zackenberg Research Station plot n Greenland to “asses state changes between budding, flowering, and senescent developmental stages and to quantify flower abundance” (Wheeler et al., 776) in four different flower species. Report 2, Using pelagic ciliated microzooplankton communities as an indicator for monitoring environmental condition under the impact of summer sea-ice reduction in the western Arctic Ocean was written by Jiang, Yong; Yang, Eun Jin; Min, Jun-Oh; Kang, Sung-Ho; Lee, SangHoon. Published in 2015 to understand how arctic ice melting will inevitably impact their ecosystems because so little is known about them (Jiang et al., 1). Report 3, Nematode biomass and morphometric attributes as biological indicators of local environmental conditions in Arctic fjords, was written by Grzelak, Katarzyna, Gluchowska, Marta, Gregorczyk, Klaudia, Winogradow, Aleksandra, and Weslawski, Jan Marcin. Published in May 2016, the experiment studied the connection between the biogeochemical properties of the sediment with the biomass and body shape of nematodes (Grzelak et al., 1-2). A quick summary of each experiment is found in the abstracts.

Lab report 1,  Phenological Mismatch with abiotic conditions-implications for flowering in Arctic plants, was written by Helen C. Wheeler, Toke T. Nøye, Niels Martin Schmidt, Jens-Christian Svenning, and Mads C. Forchhammer in 2015. 

The abstract of report 1 includes unnecessary background compared to reports 2 and 3. Report 3’s abstract is concise and includes a purpose that reports 2 lacks. In reports 2 and 3, Wheeler et al and Grzlak et. al both give a clear line of reasoning on why they concentrated on their research, which is a characteristic shared with Jiang et. al’s abstract. However, report 1 gives background data that is not needed, making the abstract wordy. Wheeler et. al says “Increased winter snowpack results in delayed snowmelt, whereas higher air temperatures and faster snowmelt advance the timing of snowmelt” (775). This sentence is wordy because it’s complicated to summarize statements like this, without previous information, in one sentence. In contrast, Grzleck et. al gives no background on their species and discuss the questions they’re studying. However, report 2 does not include a clear purpose for their experiment. The reason purposes are important in abstracts is so there is a line of reason and a deeper understanding of the importance of the future data. Report 3 is concise like Grzlak et. al but includes a purpose, and this is a preferable way to write the abstract because it is a quick summary of the experiment itself, not the content it studies. Abstracts should include a quick explanation of the purpose, data, and resulting conclusions of the experiment so the essence of the paper can be understood. It helps decide whether or not people read the full paper. The concise nature of reports 2 and 3 means there is a better summary of what is happening in the experiment, making it easier to understand in a shorter period whereas report 1 is too specific. The overall organization of each report makes some of the papers easier to understand.

The organization of the methods section is better in reports 1 and 3 because of the separation equations with paragraphs, but report 1’s subheadings continue to create blocky text that’s hard to follow. In report 1, the authors divide their methods section into sections of each of their equations; the section “Phenological characteristics and floral abundance” (Wheeler et. al, 778) describes the use and purpose of their equation. The audience then has an easier time understanding how their data were analyzed. However, report 1’s italics have no section numbers and are centered on the page. This makes the sections hard to differentiate between because it’s unclear which belongs to the method and which to the results. Despite report 1’s shortcomings with headings, the graphs and equations being separate from paragraphs help readers comprehend how data was being interpreted. Comparatively, report 2 explains which specific equations they used to analyze their data (Jung et. al, 381) but doesn’t go in-depth as to why those equations were chosen. Jung explains that “multivariate analysis of spatial variations..used PRIMER v6.1” (Jung et. al, 381), meaning the audience is expected to have a background on the purpose of this equation. Report 3 spends more time elaborating on the sample stations for (Grzlak et al., 370) and mentions the equations used in paragraph form instead of separately. Though report 2 follows the trend of separating the equations from the paragraph, report 3 verbally explains the equations without writing them out which makes the text blockier and the reading experience difficult. The discussions and added graphs of all reports 

The discussion and added graphed portion of all three lab reports answers their intended questions and help with data comprehension, but report 1 is slightly repetitive. Report 1 lists their main conclusion, in the beginning, stating “that the time of flowering can affect the temperature conditions experienced by plants during flower development.” (Wheeler et. al, 781). This was unnecessary because the results section was right before the discussion. Report 2 does not begin with results and starts their discussion “The Arctic Ocean may be a sensitive indicator of global climate changes” (Jiang et. al, 387). Report 3 also begins their results by describing their sampling area. Both ways of beginning discussions work well because they all inevitably use their closing paragraphs to discuss how their results added to climate change data and how it will be used in the future. This is helpful because it validates the claims and questions placed in the introductions and abstracts, giving the paper an acceptable structure. The discussions section is the last section of content in all three lab reports, making its ability to summarize and answer main points crucial to the report itself. All the graphs in each report give a visual representation of the data well because it shows how each data point compares to the others. The language of the results can be reinforced with these scatter plots, bar graphs, and line graphs. Despite the well-written discussions, report 1 does fall short because of its repetition and the graphical representations don’t help that. 

The three reports discussed have their pros and cons. While report 1 has a generally easy layout and wordy abstract, it contains the purpose of the experiment early on, making the reading experience easier. Reports 2 and 3 have a concise and descriptive abstract but some key points are missing in report 3’s summary of the text. Report 1 builds upon existing data, so their data collection methods are not extensive, and their research topic, though maybe different, does not need an extraneous abstract. Reports 2 and 3 have very specific methods sections because they’re collecting their samples, but 3 does not have blocked-out equations like report 2, making the text blocky.

Works Cited

Grzelak, Katarzyna, et al. “Nematode Biomass and Morphometric Attributes as Biological Indicators of Local Environmental Conditions in Arctic Fjords.” Ecological Indicators, vol. 69, 2016, pp. 368–380., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.036. 

Jiang, Yong, et al. “Using Pelagic Ciliated Microzooplankton Communities as an Indicator for Monitoring Environmental Condition under Impact of Summer Sea-Ice Reduction in Western Arctic Ocean.” Ecological Indicators, vol. 34, 2013, pp. 380–390., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.026. Wheeler, Helen C., et al. “Phenological Mismatch with Abiotic Conditions—Implications for Flowering in Arctic Plants.” Ecology, vol. 96, no. 3, 2015, pp. 775–787., https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0338.1.