Category: Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of Scientific Information I have chosen for Blog Post 2 is a Journal titled Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss, written by Tim S. Doherty, Alistair S. Glen, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, and Chris R. Dickman.

Journal Article Reference:
Dickman, C.R., Doherty, T., Glen, A.S., Nimmo, D.G., & Ritchie, E.G. (2016). Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss. PNAS. 113(40). 11261-11265. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602480113

Based on Module 1 discussions of categorizing information sources into four distinctive groups, this Journal would be categorized as academic peer-reviewed research material. The reasoning for this Journal article to fall under the academic peer-reviewed research material category is based on the information source featuring the following criteria:

  • The information source was written by experts, features in text citations, and has a bibliography. Therefore, is not considered to be non-academic material.
  • The information states to have been edited by 1 individual, Daniel S. Simberloff from The University of Tennessee, in Knoxville, TN. Therefore, is not considered to be non-peer reviewed academic material.
  • The information source does feature Methods, Results, and Discussion sections that offer information collected by the authors of this study. Therefore, this is not considered to be academic peer-reviewed review material.
  • By meeting the above criteria the Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss Journal written by Tim, S. Doherty, Alistair S. Glen, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, and Chris R. Dickman is categorized as academic peer-reviewed research material.

Blog Post 2!

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The article is called, “Fearful effects of ecological competitors,” written by Oswald J. Schmitz a member of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. The source that I chose is non peer-reviewed academic material which is an article that was published in Nature on the 6th of June 2019. I was able to classify the source as academic material because it is written by an expert in the field, it includes in-text citations and contains a bibliography. The source however was not reviewed before publication, therefore, is non-peer reviewed.

Schmitz, O.J. (2019). “Predators Affect Competitors’ Coexistence through Fear Effects.” Nature, vol. 570, no. 7759. pp. 43–44., doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01712-7.

https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-019-01712-7/d41586-019-01712-7.pdf

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I chose to review an article entitled “Spatial and Temporal Variation of Coyote (Canis latrans) Diet in Calgary, Alberta”, published in the journal Cities and the Environment.  I found this article online via Google Scholar. I was drawn to it in part because authors used Calgary’s Fish Creek Provincial Park in their research, a location I have chosen to observe for my research project.  I was also interested in the topic because I frequently see coyotes in the grasslands near my property and must keep in mind the safety of my pets when walking in the area.

This paper can be classified as peer-reviewed academic research material. Details of this statement can be broken down as follows:

  1. Peer-reviewed: Authors thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided feedback on their manuscript.
  2. Academic: Both authors are affiliated with the University of Calgary. An online search of their names confirms that both are accomplished researchers in the field of ecology.  In addition, the paper contains both in-text citations and a bibliography.  I noted that there seems to be some blank lines in their bibliography, however I’m not sure if this is an omission by authors or simply a formatting problem when downloading the paper.
  3. Research material: Authors are reporting on results of a field study. They include comprehensive information in the “Methods” and “Results” section that would enable readers to replicate their research if desired.

The article can be found at https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/8/

Citation: Lukasik, Victoria M. and Alexander, Shelley M. (2012) “Spatial and Temporal Variation of Coyote (Canis latrans) Diet in Calgary, Alberta,” Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 8.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of ecological information that I have selected is a paper entitled “Effect of local stand structure on leaf area, growth, and growth efficiency following thinning of white spruce.”

(Link:https://www-sciencedirect-com.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/search/advanced?docId=10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.005). It was written by experts in the field. It also includes in-text citations (Tree growth is a function of the amount of foliage, the rate of photosynthesis per unit of foliage, allocation of photosynthate to components and conversion rates to new structural matter (Brix, 1983)) and a bibliography, making it academic material. It is not clear whether the article was reviewed before publication: “Acknowledgements: This research was funded by J.D. Irving, Limited and by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Collaborative Research and Development grant to a team led by D.A. MacLean. Kwadwo Omari was funded by a NSERC Industrial Post-graduate Scholarship. We thank the staff at J.D. Irving, Limited for their input and assistance with the project.” I would classify this source as non-peer-reviewed academic material.

Post 2: Source of Scientific information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

A) Jenerette, G. D., and Weijun Shen. “Experimental Landscape Ecology.” Landscape Ecology 27.9 (2012): 1237-48. ProQuest. 5 May 2019 .

B) This paper is Academic, peer-reviewed review material

C)

1. This article was written by two experts indicated by their work at universities

2. This article included in-text citations

3. This article contains a complete bibliography

This article was peer reviewed, which can be determined by examining the acknowledgements sections in which other professionals who had input into the article were thanked. Due to no methods or results this article was deemed to not be research material.

Blog Post #2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I examined The article, Population structure and habitat use of gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada) in Wof-Washa Forest (Gosh-Meda Area), Central Ethiopia to determine which category of scientific information it fits into.  The article appears to be written by two experts in the field.  As one is employed by the Department of Biology at Debre Markos University and the other is employed at the Department of Zoological Sciences at the Addis Ababa University.  However, neither of their credentials are noted so it does not meet this criterion. The article makes use of in-text citations as well it has a bibliography. The article makes no mention of a referee reviewing the paper before the publication or of a peer review process. The article does have a results sections which are usually associated with an academic, peer-reviewed paper. Because this paper did not document the authors credentials, a referee, or the peer-review process I would classify this paper as non-academic material.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/canine-virus–parasites-kill-24-endangered-lions-in-india-64974

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I chose:

Perry, G. H., & Verdu, P. (2017). Genomic perspectives on the history and evolutionary ecology of tropical rainforest occupation by humans. Quaternary International, 448, 150–157. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.04.038

This is an academic, peer-reviewed paper.

The article is academic because it is written by professionals in their field. It has in-text citations and there are many papers referred to in the references section. The article is published in Quaternary International, which means that it is peer reviewed but it is a review not research material since it is lacking methods and results sections and has a topic instead of a research question it strives to answer.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

A)

Lindgren, P., Ransome, D., Sullivan, D., Sullivan, T., (2009). Stand structure and the abundance and diversity of plants and small mammals in natural and intensively managed forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, pp.S127-S141.  Retrieved From: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/science/article/pii/S0378112709003983

B)

Academic peer-reviewed research material.

C)

  1. The article was written by the Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry.
  2. The article included in-text citations.
  3. The article contains a bibliography (listing all sources used).

I assumed that because the article was published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management that it would have had to be peer-reviewed.

The article reports the results of a field study and contains “methods” and “results”

 

 

 

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source I chose was “Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada” and can be found at https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. It was published by International Association for Bear Research and Management in the journal URSUS in 1998. It is an academic, peer reviewed, research paper.

Mike Gibeau, the sole author, is an expert in his field with over three decades of experience in ecology and large carnivore research, namely wolves, black bears and grizzly bears. He is an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, where he earned his PhD in Conservation Biology. The paper features in-text citation throughout the sections and ends with a “literature cited” list. URSUS is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is safe to assume that this particular article was peer-reviewed at least once before publication in 1998. Methods and Results sections are both present and are detailed enough for other scientists to be able to replicate the experiment and compare their results. The data are supported by appropriate tables and figures and clearly display the patterns focused on in the Discussion section.

 

References:

Gibeau, M. 1998. Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Ursus, 10:235–241. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131

Post 2 – Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I’ve attempted to classify two sources of information – the first one (journal article) I am confident that I’ve assessed correctly, and the second (book) I am not so sure. I also didn’t know which documentation style to use here, so I used CSE.

 

Journal article:

Arft AM, Walker MD, Gurevitch JM, Alatalo MS, Bret-Harte M, Dale M, Diemer M, Gugerli F, Henry GHR, Jones MH, et al. 1999. Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecological Monographs. 69(4):491-511. http://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.2307/2657227.

I have classified this as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

This article is academic, as the authors are all listed as being associated with various departments of well-known universities, making them likely to be experts in their fields; in-text citations are included; and there is a formal literature cited section with nearly a hundred references. The article is peer-reviewed because the website for the journal Ecological Monographs details a comprehensive peer-review process that is applied to all papers considered for publication. The paper also has “methods” and “results” sections, so it is research material.

 

Book:

Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, & Wheye, D. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York (NY): Simon and Schuster, Fireside.

I have classified this as Non-peer reviewed academic material.

The reasons I classified this book as academic are:

  • that Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich is an esteemed expert in his field receiving numerous science awards and honors. At the time the book was published he was Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biology at Stanford University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. David S. Dobkin was a Henry Rutgers Fellow and Assistant Professor of Zoology at Rutgers University, and a publishing scientist, and Darryl Wheye was a biologist and writer.
  • the book includes some in-text citations by noting the name of the author of a study in the text material, enabling the reader can look up the related article or book in the bibliography.
  • the book has an extensive 62-page bibliography of books and journal articles.

Although many scientists have informally reviewed this book, it has not undergone a formal peer-review process in the sense of having referees assigned, so I have classified it as non-peer reviewed. If I had to categorize it as research or review, I’d say it was review because it is a massive compilation of the knowledge gained by many studies.