Post 2 Scientific Sources

The article I chose is The Importance of fungi and mycology for addressing major global challenges. The article was published in the IMA Fungus in 2014. The IMA Fungus is the official journal of the International Mycological Association. The article was written by Lene Lange. Lene is a professor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. The article is review of the current literature and how mycology can be used to address global challenges. There are in text citations and a list of references. There is no list of referees; however, because the article has been published in the IMA Fungus, I think it is an academic article that is not peer reviewed.

 

Lange, L., (2014). The Importance of fungi and mycology for addressing major global challenges. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734035

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

For my source of ecological information, I have chosen a report on Mule Deer wintering habitat, titled Mule Deer Winter Habitat Model,  written by Anne-Marie Roberts (2004). The report was written for the Morice and Lakes District Innovative Forest Practices Agreement, which is a government initiative to develop innovative forestry practices in the Lakes and Morice Timber Sales Area (Ministry of Forests, 2000). The report provides information on Mule deer winter behavior such as food sources, feeding patterns, and preferred habitat, to name a few (Roberts, 2004). The document can be read by following this link: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r1526/hsm_4065_modhe_1115307201308_ee60c663264b43aba7b2a8923b1f9018.pdf

Using the tutorial How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information (n.d.), I have determined that the source I have chosen is non peer-reviewed academic material. I arrived at this conclusion because the source was written by an expert in the field,as the author works for a biological consulting firm (Roberts, 2004). It does have in text citations and it does have a bibliography. It does not, however, have any referees and is therefore not  peer-reviewed academic material (“How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information”, n.d.).

I chose to use this document on Mule Deer wintering habitat as I am extremely interested in Mule Deer behavior, and I am hoping to use this interest to help guide my research project for this course.

Sources:

Robert, A (2004). Mule Deer Winter Habitat Model. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r1526/hsm_4065_modhe_1115307201308_ee60c663264b43aba7b2a8923b1f9018.pdf

Ministry of Forests (2002). Innovative Forestry Practices Agreements Handbook. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib45953.pdf

How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information (n.d.). Retrieved from https://barabus.tru.ca/biol3021/evaluating_information.html#7

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Info by E. C. Bell

Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska; was written and contributed to by ten notable authors, compiled and edited by Jim Pojar and Andy MacKinnon, whose design was to present an accessible ecological guide to the plants of this specific region. It is a comprehensive guide that includes photos and descriptions of flora, organized in a manner that groups similar species for the purpose of identification. Information on human interactions with the flora is included with the plants’ ecological descriptions, the entire works is engaging and systematically accessible.

Funding for the publication of Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska was provided for by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and the Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on Forest Resource Development. The publisher, Lone Pine Publishing, acknowledged the assistance of Alberta Community Development and the Department of Canadian Heritage with additional funding provided by the Alberta Foundation for the Arts.

According to the Flow chart for discriminating among different sources of information, Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska begins to qualify as a research material because the majority of contributing authors are affiliated with departments of speciality within Canadian universities or the British Columbia Forest Service (p. 527). I did not find any in text citations, however, there is an extensive list of References Cited, as well, direct acknowledgement is given to “knowledgeable Aboriginal botanists from the First Nations of the Northwest Coast and neighbouring areas…” (Pojar and MacKinnon, p. 7). Beyond the editing of Pojar and MacKinnon, there was a technical review of portions of the text by George Douglas and Chris Marchant (p. 7). Because this compilation is not a scientific study and, therefore, does not include a “methods” or a “results” section, I believe Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska to officially be an academic peer-reviewed review material. The following pictures are meant to provide the documentation needed to support my designation of Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska as an academic peer-reviewed review material because they show the text claiming technical revision and reveal the qualifications of the authors. Unofficially, I have many years of pouring through the water resistant pages of Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska, considering it and others in the series dedicated to the different ecoregions of British Columbia, to qualify as researched reference material.

Blog Post #2 – Source of Scientific Info

The source I found is “Reverse chemical ecology: Olfactory proteins from the giant panda and their interactions with putative pheramones and bamboo volatiles”, published in 2017 by Jiao Zhu, Simona Arena, Silvia Spinelli, Dingzhen Liu, Rongping Wei, Christian Cambillau, Andrea Scaloni, Guirong Wang, and Paolo Pelosi.

Link can be found : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01802949/document

This article is an academic, peer-reviewed, research article. It is an academic article because it is written by experts of that field, includes in-text citations throughout the article, as well as a bibliography at the end of the article. Stated near the top, the article was received for review before being approved, making this article peer-reviewed. And finally, since the article does have a detailed methods section to test their hypothesis, as well as a results section, this makes it a research article.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

The article I chose was

Wu Y, Luben R, Jones A. Dog ownership supports the maintenance of physical activity during poor weather in older English adults: cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71:905-911.
It can be read in it’s entirety at https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/9/905
Using the guidelines given in our course readings, I have classified this as academic, peer reviewed research material. The authors are all employed by the Cambridge Institute of Public Health and have published numerous studies in the health, chemistry, and behavioral ecology. The study notes that it was externally peer-reviewed though provides no further details as to who reviewed the study. The study also notes their methodology and results, leading me to believe it is a research paper, not a review.

BLOG POST 2

  1. Clarke, D., and D. Robert. 2018. Predictive modelling of honey bee foraging activity using local weather conditions. Apidologie 49:386-396.

They looked at the connection between foraging activity of honey bees and weather conditions. The rate at which the bees would leave was measured along with the temperature, solar radiation, atmospheric pressure, humidity, rainfall, wind direction and speed. There was a positive correlation between temperature and bee activity. The correlations were also mostly linear. Two foraging seasons were studied, July-September 2013 and June-September 2014, each year was a different bee hive.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

a) The ecological source of information I have found is as follows: Kahn, AS, JWF Chu, and SP Leys. “Trophic Ecology of Glass Sponge Reefs in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia.” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, pp. 756-11. This source was found on the library website.

b) This article is a research, peer-reviewed, academic source

c) This article is a research article as it outlines a typical research article format (ie. Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion), has a descriptive title, the authors of the article (researchers) are associated with a university/institute (as seen by the citation besides their names) and it includes data from their findings. It is an academic source as it is published in an academic journal and including references to supporting research and has in-text citations. The article is peer reviewed as the revision and publication dates are noted.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

The article titled “Ten-year regeneration responses to varying levels of overstory retention in two productive southern British Columbia ecosystems” was sourced from the TRU Library and is available through Science Direct at the following link (Newsome et al. 2010):

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/science/article/pii/S0378112710002057?via%3Dihub

The article is classified as an academic, peer-reviewed research material. The article is classified as academic because the authors are considered experts in the field (i.e., governmental and university), and there is in-text citation and a bibliography. The article is classified as peer-reviewed and it states the article history as received on 6 February 2010, received in revised form 6 April 2010, Accepted 7 April 2010. This article history means there was an opportunity for the article to be rejected, therefore the article has been peer-reviewed. The article is classified as research material as there is a methods and results section, where the article reports on results of the study.

Reference:

Newsome T, Heineman J, Nemec A, Comeau P, Arsenault A, Waterhouse M. 2010. Ten-year regeneration responses to varying levels of overstory retention in two productive southern British Columbia ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management [Internet]. [cited September 29, 2019]; 260: 132-145. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/science/article/pii/S0378112710002057?via%3Dihub . doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.04.012

Academic Peer-Reviewed Research Article Example

a.) The ecological information source I selected for this exercise is the following journal article:

Hamann, A. & Wang, T. (2006). Potential effect of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution in British Columbia. Ecology 87(11), pp. 2773-2786. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/20069297

b.) This article is classified as academic peer-reviewed research

c.) It was written by experts in the field, employed by the University of British Columbia, at the Centre for Forest Gene Conservation within the Department of Forest Sciences. It has in text citations (ie. p. 2773) and contains a bibliography (p. 2784). It has been peer-reviewed by at least one referee based on the description in the acknowledgements (p. 2784) and the description of manuscript revisions and acceptance (p. 2773). It reports laboratory results, and contains a methods and results section indicating it is research based. Additionally, the methods and results report their own data collection, processing, and findings, affirming the article is research-based. For these reasons, this article would be considered an academic peer-reviewed research article.

 

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

The article “Himalayan wolf foraging ecology and the importance of wild prey” is from Science Direct, and was published in 2019 by Elsevier B.V. on Global Ecology and Conservation.

The article can be found here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989419301830

This article is academic peer reviewed research material containing in-text citations and a bibliography on the page 12. It is written by eight experts who work in various organizations as stated on the top of the first page. On the home page the Elsevier Journal it states that all articles hosted on Science Direct are peer reviewed (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-ecology-and-conservation), and on the first page of the article in the “Article Info” section also states that the article has been revised. This article is a field study and contain a “Methods” and “Results” section on pages 2-4.