Assignment #1: Paper Summaries
Due in lab Week 2
Zoology 316 2007
Required Journal Articles
1. Kratz, TK; Webster, KE; Bowser, CJ; Magnuson, JJ; Benson, BJ. 1997. The influence
of landscape position on lakes in northern Wisconsin. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY 37 (1):
209-217.
2. Dillon, PJ; Rigler, FH. 1974. Phosphorus-Chlorophyll relationship in lakes.
LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY 19 (5): 767-773.
Description
This assignment involves finding, reading, interpreting, and communicating important
highlights from two “classic” limnological papers. These papers function not only as
good snapshots of the field of limnology in general, but also directly pertain to Wisconsin
waters and lessons which will be further revealed to you throughout this course.
Background on the Scientific Method and Hypothesis Testing
Science progresses by a simple general sequence: research first compile background
information, then ask questions, next collect information in an attempt to answer those
questions (typically by collecting quantitative data), then interpret their results, and
finally, present their findings in publications (typically scientific journals) or at
conferences.
Hypothesis testing is a critical part of the scientific process, and provides a way to
interpret the validity of proposed patterns in nature. A hypothesis test, set up prior to the
experiment when applied correctly, contains two essential components: the null
hypothesis (H0), and the alternate hypothesis (HA). The null hypothesis is a statement to
be either accepted or rejected, and describes the “lack of pattern” case. The alternative
hypothesis is a statement that provides a potentially favorable explanation for the case
where the null hypothesis is rejected. Also, more than one set of these “hypothesis pairs”
may be tested in a single experiment. For example, researchers may propose that certain
patterns or relationships among lake variables (the alternate hypotheses) by testing them
against respective null hypotheses (that no statistically significant patterns exist); thus,
when we reject a null hypothesis we are suggesting that some pattern exists. The
rationale refers to a line of logical reasoning (employed by the researchers) that ends in
the conclusion “…and therefore we expect pattern X.” Note that we are not talking about
broader/practical reasons the experiment was conducted here (e.g. “to promote water
quality”), but rather to the reasoning for the expected pattern (e.g. “increases in variable
A cause increases in variable B, and increases in variable B result in pattern X; therefore
we expect pattern X”). Take note that in scientific papers, some elements of the
alternative hypothesis, null hypothesis, and rationale may indeed be stated outright, but
oftentimes there are key implicit elements (not directly stated); this means that, for
example, if you are ever asked to identify the rationale in an assignment, you should
present the premises of the entire argument (both the implicit and explicit elements) in a
logical, methodical fashion.
Your Task
Find both papers on Web of Science as explained in class and Appendix B of the lab
manual (On Writing a Scientific Paper) and print hard copies for yourself. Read both
papers. For each paper you must then accurately identify and successfully communicate
in no more, and no less, than two double-spaced, brief, typewritten paragraphs (so 4
paragraphs total), the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
the null hypothesis of the paper (H0) in 1-2 sentences
5 pts
the alternative hypothesis of the paper (HA) in 1-2 sentences
5 pts
the researchers’ rationale for predicting/examining a potential pattern
5 pts
your own argument for your selections above (state why they are correct) 5 pts
the major points of the paper, interesting insights, general summary, and
style.
20 pts
x 2 papers
total: 80 pts
*Remember that we encourage collaboration outside of class for all assignments, but you
must always write answers in your own words.