Being a marine biology major, I am not given many writing assignments. Besides English 110, I have written one paper throughout this semester. This paper was a lab report data analysis for a lab we conducted measuring the growth of phytoplankton. Although the paper did not use many of the typical writing skills we learned this semester in class, such as using quotes and evidence, my writing skills becoming better overall in English 110 helped me to write a better lab report. It helped my writing in more of a structural and technical way than a content-based way. When writing this report, I was making sure that everything I was saying made sense and flowed. When I explained and analyzed the data, I was able to make sure that it correlated well with that data.
Steven Pinker, in his essay “Why Academics Stink at Writing”, he explains the difficulty of writing a good paper for students in college. he even makes a point of saying “It would be tedious for a biologist to spell out the meaning of the term transcription factor every time she used it, and so we should not expect the tête-à-tête among professionals to be easily understood by amateurs” (Pinker 2). This idea applies directly to me and the work I can expect to be writing in the upcoming semesters at UNE. A good way for me to write is to not assume that my reader will know everything I’m talking about when it comes to science. He also explains that students may know exactly what they want to talk about, but just don’t know the best way to convey it. These points are something I, as well as any other student, should consider while writing.
In future writing assignments, which I know I can expect from the Environmental Issues course I am planning to take next semester, I will take the knowledge I have gained from English 110 with me. I know the many writing methods we have discussed in class will apply to my writing in the upcoming four years here at UNE for me. I will be stronger in my quote and analysis techniques, and have a better understanding for argumentative writing. The concept of looking at a paper as your part in a conversation will always stick with me and help me to excel in my work.
All in all, English 110 has not only helped me with my writing so far in school, but will continue to help me as I go on and further my academic career.
Phytoplankton Population Growth Data Analysis
During this lab, the growth patterns of two different species of phytoplankton, Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Dunaliella tertiolecta, were viewed. Phytoplankton are microscopic, single celled organisms. They are autotrophs, making their own food using sunlight and nutrients found in the water. The two species we will be using in this lab are found in the three most common groups of phytoplankton- diatoms, dinoflagellates, and autotrophic flagellates. The two species were both put into liquid F/2 media, as well as three different concentration levels of silica. F/2 media contains nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus, while silica is sodium metasilicate. The purpose of this is to determine the effect each level would have on the growth of the phytoplankton. The silica is needed for some specific types of phytoplankton to grow, but not all of them. Seeing which type is affected most by the concentration of silica will help to determine which group the species is in.
For the Phaeodactylum tricornutum, the different levels of silica played a large factor in the growth rate of the species. For the first seven days of the experiment, the growth rates in each of the three concentrations were relatively similar. It was not until the eighth day that the growth rates started to branch apart. Between day nine and ten, the full silica group saw their largest increase, taking its population well above the other two groups. The half silica group rose at around the same time, bringing it higher than the no silica group. The no silica group increased slightly, but no more than 125,000 cells per mL-1. Overall, it was shown that the level of silica in each group of Phaeodactylum tricornutum had an impact on its growth rate.
For the Dunaliella tertiolecta, the different levels of silica did not seem to have as large of an effect on the growth rate of the population. Each of the three groups followed the same pattern of growth. It took about nine days for there to be an increase in population. Between the ninth and eleventh day, each group’s population grew rapidly, almost tripling in size. After the eleventh day, the population appears to have reached its carrying capacity. On the following day, the populations dropped by about 150,000 cells per mL-1. They then stayed steady for the remaining days. For each increase and decrease of population, the three different groups of Dunaliella tertiolecta stayed together in their growth rates. Because of this, the silica levels did not affect the growth of Dunaliella tertiolecta.
Since Phaeodactylum tricornutum was affected by the amount of silica within the water it was growing in, ot can be concluded that they are in the group Dinoflagellates. This is because of their lack of silica outer shell. Dunaliella tertiolecta, however, have an outer shell made of silica called a frustule. Because of this, the presence of silica has an impact on their growth rate. This makes them part of the group Diatoms.
