Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

I chose an article entitled, Feeding ecology of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Canada found in the Thompson Rivers University (TRU) Library. The article can be found in Marine Environmental Research.

Looking over this article, and from what I learned in our tutorial, I believe this is an academic peer-reviewed research article.

I’ve deemed this article as academic primarily due to the contributing authors and their affiliation with the Biology Department at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada (Figure 1). Two other contributing factors are that the journal this article was published in is considered a research journal (Figure 2) and secondly, TRU Library allows one to be able to refine their search to retrieve academic journals (Figure 3). The article would also be considered academic due to the amount of in-text citations (Figure 4) and the reference list at the end of the article (Figure 5).

I believe the article is peer-reviewed based off of the timeline outlining the manuscript received date, the revision date, and the publication date (Figure 6) and as previously mentioned, I specifically searched for peer-reviewed articles in the TRU Library (Figure 7).

References

Varela, J. L.,  Spares, A. D., Stokesbury, M. J. W. 2020, October 16. Feeding ecology of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Canada. Marine Environmental Research. V 161. 105087, ISSN 0141-1136. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105087.

Figures

Blog post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

The article I’ve chosen for this exercise is a paper published by the journal Ecology entitled: Spatially nonrandom tree mortality and ingrowth maintain equilibrium pattern in an old-growth Pseudotsuga–Tsuga forest.

It can be found by going to this link:

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/43494711

The article can be classified as academic, peer-reviewed research material based on the following evidence (images were taken from the paper and provide documentation):

The authors appear to be experts in their fields as proven by their university affiliations, in-text citations, and a literature cited section.

The paper was peer-reviewed by anonynous reviewers whom the authors acknowledged.

It was a research paper: it contained a methods and results section.

 

Blog post 2

I chose an article from the Science Mag “Transient phenomena in ecology”. I sourced it from Google Scholar.

https://science-sciencemag-org.berlioz.brandonu.ca/content/361/6406/eaat6412.full

The article can be classified as non-peer-reviewed academic material, specifically for review purposes. The article also includes many in-text citations and a complete bibliography. There was no acknowledgment of the article being peer. Lastly, the article can be easily determined to be review material rather than research material by the lack of a “Methods” and “Results” section.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

I chose the review article “DLK2 regulates arbuscule hyphal branching during arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis” by Ho-Palagaro et al. The receptor in question has been elucidated to have implications in mycorrhizal chemical ecology, namely in distingushing between strigolactones and karrakins.

This is an example of academic, peer-reviewed research material. It is published in the journal New Phytologist, which only publishes peer-reviewed papers. It is primary research, since the authors carried out their own study and data analysis, rather than synthesizing information from the existing literature. The attached image outlines New Phytologist’s policies.

 

Post #2: Sources of Scientific Information

The source of ecological information that I have selected for this blog entry is “Effects of high temperatures on photosynthetic capacity in the leaves of creepers”,  a journal article posted online from the ScienceAsia journal. The link to the article is as follows:

http://www.scienceasia.org/acconline/060-2019-0800.pdf

The article is classified as an academic, peer-reviewed research material. The authors Yuan Xue-Tao, Li Fu-Ping, and Gu Hai-Hong are associated with the College of Mining Engineering at North China University of Science and Technology, the Hebei Key Laboratory of Mining Development and Security, and the Hebei Industrial technology Institute of Mine Ecological Remediation in Tangshan. Following the article, the authors have included an acknowledgment, however, in this section peer-reviewers are not listed. Nonetheless, the ScienceAsia journal only publishes peer-reviewed articles, therefore, we can assume that it was peer-review before being published.

In the body of the article, sections were created to list the materials and methods of the conducted research, including the location, measurements of chlorophyll content, gas exchange, and chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. Following the presentation of their collected data sets, the authors provided a section for discussion on their findings and interpretations of their data.

Post #2: Sources of Scientific Information

One ecological information source is a website called allaboutbirds.org. It is an organization that gains information from other sources. The source is -> https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Canada_Goose/lifehistory#

b) I would classify it as academic material that is not peer-reviewed.

C) Even though they have credited their sources of information, it is more of an information website to gain information on the topic(s) one’s interested in rather than a formal peer-reviewed piece of work.

 

 

 

 

Post #2 Sources of Scientific Information

The source of scientific ecological information is an article from Science Advances found here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb7232

I would classify this source as being peer reviewed academic research material. My reasons for doing so include the fact that this is a study that includes both methods and results sections that evaluates data from the field of tropical rainforests, it is published in a Science journal who have peer review as one of their prerequisites for publishing journals, as found in their editorial policies found here: https://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-journals-editorial-policies, and this paper was written by authors are are all from Earth and/or Environmental science departments of their respective higher education communities, classifying them as experts in their fields, they have in text citations and a bibliography of 64 sources relevant to their topic.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

a) I found an article online on fern species diversity in an old-growth forest. I have provided a link to it below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00279.x

b) This source of information is academic peer-reviewed research.

c) I was able to determine that it is an academic source because I was able to click on the authors and see that they are affiliated with a university. There were also in-text citations and a bibliography. 

Next, I could see that it was peer-reviewed because there was an acceptance date, as well as the authors thanked some people in the acknowledgements section for “providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.”

 Finally, I concluded that it was a research source due to the presence of a methods and results section, meaning they reported results of a field study. 

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

a. The article I chose is Citizen Science in Ecology: A Place for Humans in Nature and the source is from the online TRU Library. The article is from the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences  The link to the article is below:

https://nyaspubs-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.14340

b. Based on the tutorial, I classified the article as an academic peer-reviewed review article.

c. The article is academic due to the authors being experts in their field; I was able to click on each of the authors and see that all of the authors were affiliated with an academic institution, the School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). The article is also considered academic because it includes in-text citations and has a reference list (Figures 2 and 3).  I was able to determine the article was peer-reviewed by the article having the publication history including the manuscript received date, the manuscript revised date, a version of online record date, and the online issue date (Figure 4).  I was also able to refine my search in the online TRU Library to only search for articles that have been peer-reviewed which also helped to verify the article was peer reviewed (Figure 5).  The article is a review article based on there being no methods or results section; the article also stated at the top that it was a review article (Figure 6).

References:

Adler, F. R., Green, A. M., & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. (2020). Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1469(1), 52–64. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1111/nyas.14340

Post 2: Sources of Scientific

One of the source of ecological information that I am using is from the Alberta Parks website: https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/fish-creek-pp/information-facilities/nature/plants/#:~:text=Common%20Plant%20Species,spruce%20forests%20with%20some%20grasslands.

This information is a city managed website that provides updated research material on the nature of various parks located in Alberta. The area that I referred to was for Fish Creek Provincial Park. This source is written and maintained by professionals in the field of ecology. This is confirmed by looking at the requirements necessary for applying to work for Alberta Parks. I know that the sections that I used in regards to Fish Creek are peer reviewed as they provide as list of updates to the webpages with who updated the information and their position within Alberta Parks.