Summary:
It has been observed that certain fish have had strange bites on them. These bite marks are from cookie-cutter sharks. They feed on crustaceans but they have also been known to take a bite out of much bigger fish, whales, and seals. After observing this, scientists set out to do a study in order to answer a few questions. The goals of this study were to see how the bites varied each season, see what species were targeted, and use the marks to identify the size of the cookie-shark.
The scientists were able to study the bite marks that the sharks made on fish from the Honolulu Fish Auction. They went their weekly for one year in order to collect data. The data was collected at the same time each week. They took the percentage of fish that were bite each week. They then used a sub-sample of fish in order to get a more in depth examination of the shark bites. The scars were classified as being new, partially-healed, and healed.
The fish most effected by bite marks were swordfish, opha, and bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Swordfish had the highest percent of fresh bites, followed by opah. Pacific blue marlins didn't have any bites from the cookie-cutter shark. Swordfish and opah also had the highest amounts of healed bites. Swordfish, bigeye tuna, and opah had consistent scaring throughout the year. The probability for some species varied throughout the year. Swordfish had the most bites per individual. Overall the data showed that swordfish were the most preyed upon along with the yellowfin and bigeye tuna, and the opah. The pacific blue marlin was not preyed upon.
Evaluation:
This article gave accurate information on the study. It gave specific data and explained how the study was carried out. The article was clear on why the study was being conducted, how it was, and what the results were. The article was concise in most parts but it did become repetitive at some points, like in the discussion. The article didn't stray from the topic however. The sentences weren't too wordy either. This study was ethical. The scientists did not harm any animals during this study. The study actually helps the fishermen because the cookie-cutter bites decrease the value of the fish, so if they know when the bites are more likely and what fish are more likely to get bitten they can base their fishing off the data. The article wasn't hard to read. Their were some parts that were difficult to read because of jargon. It was also lengthy to read. The reader satisfaction is moderate because it can be a very helpful study for fishermen and marine scientists. It could be hard for others to read. The article was organizes and not too hard to read though.
The intend purpose of this article was to inform scientists and fishermen the species most effected by cookie-cutter sharks, along with the seasonal patterns, etc. The article was meant for a low to high tech audience, mostly fishermen and marine scientists. The organization of the article was well done. The figures were properly introduced and the sections had effective headings.
Reference:
Papastamatiou, Y. P., Wetherbee, B. M., O'Sullivan, J., Goodmanlowe, G. D., & Lowe, C. G. (2010). Foraging ecology of Cookiecutter Sharks ( Isistius brasiliensis) on pelagic fishes in Hawaii, inferred from prey bite wounds. Environmental Biology Of Fishes, 88(4), 361-368. doi:10.1007/s10641-010-9649-2
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
"The Functional role of the caudal fin in the feeding ecology of the common thresher shark Alopias velpinus"
Summary:
This study was about the use of the tail fin of the thresher shark. It is known that sharks use their unique tails to give them lift as they move through the water. However, this species of shark has an unusually long tail. There has been evidence suggesting that the tail is also used as a feeding mechanism but it has not been observed or scientifically proven. This study was done to prove whether or not this hypothesis is correct.
The evidence in the past of these sharks using their tails as a feeding mechanism has been thresher sharks have been caught on long lines by their tails. This suggests that instead of biting their prey initially, the sharks use their tail before eating their prey. Using this evidence to create a hypothesis, scientists expected sharks to use their tails on their prey.
In order to test this hypothesis, scientists set out long lines with bait attached. Then they places a camera underwater in order to monitor how the sharks react to the bait. Mature and juvenile sharks were taped and both male and female. The sharks used their tails to strike before biting the bait. There were two different approaches the sharks used. The first approach was the shark undulated and their tails made a sinusoidal motion that hit the fish. This was observed in 59% of the strikes and resulted in a 47% success rate. The second most common motion was the lateral strike of the tail. This was observed 12 times and had a 92& success rate. These results confirmed the hypothesis.
Evaluation:
The article was accurate in describing the experiment and gave a detailed description of how they were able to preform the experiment. The article was clear and easy to follow. It stayed on the subject and didn't jump around. It gave support to the findings and used enough details to allow the reader to understand the experiment and the reason behind it. The article for the most part was concise. It did go into a lot of detail about the programs used and how they edited the film of the sharks. Overall, the authors didn't stray from the main points and their sentences weren't wordy. The experiment was ethical. No sharks were harmed because they didn't use hooks on the long lines. No fish were harmed either because they didn't use live bait. The readability was not difficult. Some words a lay audience would not understand but I was able to understand them as a freshman marine science major. The sentences weren't complex and it didn't take long to read. Overall, as a reader I'm satisfied with the article. It wasn't too difficult to read and all the information was presented.
The purpose of this article was to inform the scientific community that it is proven that thresher sharks do use their tails in prey. The audience would be marine scientist and shark biologist. The audience is not lay, it would probably be a low to high tech audience. The document was not organized very well. There were no headings and the figures were not introduced in the text.
Reference:
Aalbers, S. A., Bernal, D. D., & Sepulveda, C. A. (2010). The functional role of the caudal fin in the feeding ecology of the common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus. Journal Of Fish Biology, 76(7), 1863-1868. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02616.x
This study was about the use of the tail fin of the thresher shark. It is known that sharks use their unique tails to give them lift as they move through the water. However, this species of shark has an unusually long tail. There has been evidence suggesting that the tail is also used as a feeding mechanism but it has not been observed or scientifically proven. This study was done to prove whether or not this hypothesis is correct.
The evidence in the past of these sharks using their tails as a feeding mechanism has been thresher sharks have been caught on long lines by their tails. This suggests that instead of biting their prey initially, the sharks use their tail before eating their prey. Using this evidence to create a hypothesis, scientists expected sharks to use their tails on their prey.
In order to test this hypothesis, scientists set out long lines with bait attached. Then they places a camera underwater in order to monitor how the sharks react to the bait. Mature and juvenile sharks were taped and both male and female. The sharks used their tails to strike before biting the bait. There were two different approaches the sharks used. The first approach was the shark undulated and their tails made a sinusoidal motion that hit the fish. This was observed in 59% of the strikes and resulted in a 47% success rate. The second most common motion was the lateral strike of the tail. This was observed 12 times and had a 92& success rate. These results confirmed the hypothesis.
Evaluation:
The article was accurate in describing the experiment and gave a detailed description of how they were able to preform the experiment. The article was clear and easy to follow. It stayed on the subject and didn't jump around. It gave support to the findings and used enough details to allow the reader to understand the experiment and the reason behind it. The article for the most part was concise. It did go into a lot of detail about the programs used and how they edited the film of the sharks. Overall, the authors didn't stray from the main points and their sentences weren't wordy. The experiment was ethical. No sharks were harmed because they didn't use hooks on the long lines. No fish were harmed either because they didn't use live bait. The readability was not difficult. Some words a lay audience would not understand but I was able to understand them as a freshman marine science major. The sentences weren't complex and it didn't take long to read. Overall, as a reader I'm satisfied with the article. It wasn't too difficult to read and all the information was presented.
The purpose of this article was to inform the scientific community that it is proven that thresher sharks do use their tails in prey. The audience would be marine scientist and shark biologist. The audience is not lay, it would probably be a low to high tech audience. The document was not organized very well. There were no headings and the figures were not introduced in the text.
Reference:
Aalbers, S. A., Bernal, D. D., & Sepulveda, C. A. (2010). The functional role of the caudal fin in the feeding ecology of the common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus. Journal Of Fish Biology, 76(7), 1863-1868. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02616.x
Thursday, April 11, 2013
"Low genetic variation and evidence of limited dispersal in the regionally important Belize manatee"- summary and evaluation
Summary:
This study focused on Balize manatees and how their DNA could be used to help presevre the endangered species. Because these animals were hunted for centuries, they have become an endangered species. Now their at risk because of coastal development. Its important for manatee populations to be preserved before they become extinct.
To help make informed decisions for preserving the manatees, these scientists studied the genetic diversity of the manatee populations through their DNA. They used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA. The results of this study showed a low amount of genetic diversity considering their small population size.
From this study it can be concluded that seperate protection of the Belize City Cayes and SouthernLagoon system would be benefical. The populations need to still be monitored and protected. If they are further protected than their population diversity will increase.
Evaluation:
The report was accurate. Each section was described in detail and how the research was conducted was described very well. The report was clear. The graphs added to the clearity of the report and showed the data in an organized form. The report was concise but gave enough detail to describe the procedure and results. There were some lenghty sentences though. The report was ethical. The scientists' goal was to help the manatees in better protecting them. Overall, the report was hard to read at some places because of the wordiness and terminology. As a reader the report gave all necessary results and methods used but the vocabulary was not for a lay reader.
The purpose of the article was to help get information on how to better protect manatees. The audience was the government of the countries who had legislation protecting the manatees. The audience could also be organizations and agencies who are protecting the manatees. The organization was good. It was set up like a normal report and had headings and subheadings.
This study focused on Balize manatees and how their DNA could be used to help presevre the endangered species. Because these animals were hunted for centuries, they have become an endangered species. Now their at risk because of coastal development. Its important for manatee populations to be preserved before they become extinct.
To help make informed decisions for preserving the manatees, these scientists studied the genetic diversity of the manatee populations through their DNA. They used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA. The results of this study showed a low amount of genetic diversity considering their small population size.
From this study it can be concluded that seperate protection of the Belize City Cayes and SouthernLagoon system would be benefical. The populations need to still be monitored and protected. If they are further protected than their population diversity will increase.
Evaluation:
The report was accurate. Each section was described in detail and how the research was conducted was described very well. The report was clear. The graphs added to the clearity of the report and showed the data in an organized form. The report was concise but gave enough detail to describe the procedure and results. There were some lenghty sentences though. The report was ethical. The scientists' goal was to help the manatees in better protecting them. Overall, the report was hard to read at some places because of the wordiness and terminology. As a reader the report gave all necessary results and methods used but the vocabulary was not for a lay reader.
The purpose of the article was to help get information on how to better protect manatees. The audience was the government of the countries who had legislation protecting the manatees. The audience could also be organizations and agencies who are protecting the manatees. The organization was good. It was set up like a normal report and had headings and subheadings.
"Blue Whales Respond to Anthropogenic Noise"
Summary:
Strange noises can have effects on many animals and make them respond in different ways. In the ocean, humans can make many strange sounds using their boats and sonar. This experiment showed the effects of anthropogenic, or human-made, noise on blue whales. In particular the studied focused on how the whales responded vocally. Whales use noise, like many other animals as a form of communication with one another. These calls can have many different meanings such as mating calls, mothers communicating with their young, and warnings of danger. If the noise made by humans had an effect on these calls then it could disrupt the entire species.
The study took place in the Southern California Bight, where many blue whales can be found. The scientist used passive acoustic monitoring in the mid-frequency range during the experiment. The crews would get in boats and use sonar to send out different frequencies when they knew blue whales were near by. They then could listen using underwater recordings to hear if the whales made noises.
The results showed that blue whales were less likely to communicate with one another when mid-frequency sonar was used. They were even less likely to make calls when the sonar was louder and closer to them. However, only noises from ships being near by did not disrupt the calls. Overall, the results showed that the calls were disrupted by sonar. The long lasting effects of these results is still unknown.
Evaluation:
The report was accurate. There were graphs and detailed descriptions about the study that was conducted. The graphs help show the results of the study. The authors used details describing what methods and tools they used. The report was not very clear because, although the authors used details on what they used, they did not explain what each method was. A lay audience member would not understand what the authors were describing. The authors could have been more clear explaining what each method was. The report was concise. There was only five pages of written material and one page of graphs.The report showed that the experiment was ethical. The blue whales were not harmed by this experiment. The noise did not hurt the animals and only being exposed to the noise for a short amount of time. The readability was poor. There were many big words used, methods were not explained well and the organization was not set up well. The overall user satisfaction of the report was poor because of this.
The purpose of the article was to inform the reader of the experiment that was conducted and its results. The authors wanted the reader to know that sonar had a negative effect on the blue whale. The intended reader, or the audience, would be other scientist. The report is written for an expert audience, such as other scientist who understand what methods they use. Specifically marine scientist would be reading this report. The organization of this document was poor. The results and discussion were before the methods and data analysis. It does not make sense to put the results before the procedure is written.
Strange noises can have effects on many animals and make them respond in different ways. In the ocean, humans can make many strange sounds using their boats and sonar. This experiment showed the effects of anthropogenic, or human-made, noise on blue whales. In particular the studied focused on how the whales responded vocally. Whales use noise, like many other animals as a form of communication with one another. These calls can have many different meanings such as mating calls, mothers communicating with their young, and warnings of danger. If the noise made by humans had an effect on these calls then it could disrupt the entire species.
The study took place in the Southern California Bight, where many blue whales can be found. The scientist used passive acoustic monitoring in the mid-frequency range during the experiment. The crews would get in boats and use sonar to send out different frequencies when they knew blue whales were near by. They then could listen using underwater recordings to hear if the whales made noises.
The results showed that blue whales were less likely to communicate with one another when mid-frequency sonar was used. They were even less likely to make calls when the sonar was louder and closer to them. However, only noises from ships being near by did not disrupt the calls. Overall, the results showed that the calls were disrupted by sonar. The long lasting effects of these results is still unknown.
Evaluation:
The report was accurate. There were graphs and detailed descriptions about the study that was conducted. The graphs help show the results of the study. The authors used details describing what methods and tools they used. The report was not very clear because, although the authors used details on what they used, they did not explain what each method was. A lay audience member would not understand what the authors were describing. The authors could have been more clear explaining what each method was. The report was concise. There was only five pages of written material and one page of graphs.The report showed that the experiment was ethical. The blue whales were not harmed by this experiment. The noise did not hurt the animals and only being exposed to the noise for a short amount of time. The readability was poor. There were many big words used, methods were not explained well and the organization was not set up well. The overall user satisfaction of the report was poor because of this.
The purpose of the article was to inform the reader of the experiment that was conducted and its results. The authors wanted the reader to know that sonar had a negative effect on the blue whale. The intended reader, or the audience, would be other scientist. The report is written for an expert audience, such as other scientist who understand what methods they use. Specifically marine scientist would be reading this report. The organization of this document was poor. The results and discussion were before the methods and data analysis. It does not make sense to put the results before the procedure is written.
Friday, March 22, 2013
"Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Relative Abundance of Bull Sharks from a Tourist Shark Feeding Site in Fiji" Evaluation
Summary:
Feeding sharks and rays have become a popular activity for tourist. Some are concerned that feeding the sharks can be harmful to the population of sharks. This study count bull sharks at a marine Reserve in Fiji. The main goal was to answer the following questions: 1) What are the changes of abundance of the bull shark? 2) How many sharks use the feeding site? 3) What is the female to male ratio of sharks? 4) How does the reproductive cycle vary each season? From the results of these questions show how the number of sharks going to the site change each year and what the reproductive cycle of the shark is.
In order to attract sharks at this site, a diver dives down to different levels and releases food into the water. Sharks come because they are attracted to the chum and then the tourist can feed the sharks. From 2003 to 2009, bull sharks were counted and observed at each feeding. They counted how many bull sharks came, what sex they were, if they were pregnant, if there were any mating scars and if they had any other type of distinguishing features. Some sharks were named and they observed when that specific shark would come back.
The results showed that each day 0 to 40 sharks would come to the feeding site. Over the long term there was an increase in sharks. The average female to male ratio was 3:4 but the overall was 3:6. Females had mating wounds from December to February. After the females left pregnant in the months October through December she would come back having gave birth.
Evaluate:
The article is accurate because it goes into detail about the study that the report was on. It does not stray from the main topic at all. The authors are specific and the study has a clear purpose. The report on the study is broken down into headings that make it clear as to how they conducted the study, why, and what the results were. The way the report was written was slightly confusing at first but once they clearly stated the purpose it was easier to follow. The report could have been more concise. There was some redundancy in the report. It could have been shorter and more to the point. The study was ethical. They did not harm the sharks or the people who were feeding the sharks. They simply observed and counted the bull sharks. Overall the readability was not at a low reading level. It was a little difficult to read. But it was still understandable. As a reader, I am satisfied with the report and how it was written.
The intended purpose was made clear, which was to count and observe the bull sharks. They wanted to see if the population increased and what the reproduction cycle was like in the area. The audience was directed towards other scientist, and conservationists. Someone who was at least in 11th grade could understand the study. It was not a very complicated study but the report was not written for a lay audience. The organization of the document was very good. The sections were broken up. The results were broken up into subheadings which made it easy to see the findings.
Reference:
Brunnschweiler, J.M., & Baensch, H. (2011). Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Relative
Abundance of Bull Sharks from a Tourist Shark Feeding Site in Fiji. Plos one,6(1), doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0016597.
Feeding sharks and rays have become a popular activity for tourist. Some are concerned that feeding the sharks can be harmful to the population of sharks. This study count bull sharks at a marine Reserve in Fiji. The main goal was to answer the following questions: 1) What are the changes of abundance of the bull shark? 2) How many sharks use the feeding site? 3) What is the female to male ratio of sharks? 4) How does the reproductive cycle vary each season? From the results of these questions show how the number of sharks going to the site change each year and what the reproductive cycle of the shark is.
In order to attract sharks at this site, a diver dives down to different levels and releases food into the water. Sharks come because they are attracted to the chum and then the tourist can feed the sharks. From 2003 to 2009, bull sharks were counted and observed at each feeding. They counted how many bull sharks came, what sex they were, if they were pregnant, if there were any mating scars and if they had any other type of distinguishing features. Some sharks were named and they observed when that specific shark would come back.
The results showed that each day 0 to 40 sharks would come to the feeding site. Over the long term there was an increase in sharks. The average female to male ratio was 3:4 but the overall was 3:6. Females had mating wounds from December to February. After the females left pregnant in the months October through December she would come back having gave birth.
Evaluate:
The article is accurate because it goes into detail about the study that the report was on. It does not stray from the main topic at all. The authors are specific and the study has a clear purpose. The report on the study is broken down into headings that make it clear as to how they conducted the study, why, and what the results were. The way the report was written was slightly confusing at first but once they clearly stated the purpose it was easier to follow. The report could have been more concise. There was some redundancy in the report. It could have been shorter and more to the point. The study was ethical. They did not harm the sharks or the people who were feeding the sharks. They simply observed and counted the bull sharks. Overall the readability was not at a low reading level. It was a little difficult to read. But it was still understandable. As a reader, I am satisfied with the report and how it was written.
The intended purpose was made clear, which was to count and observe the bull sharks. They wanted to see if the population increased and what the reproduction cycle was like in the area. The audience was directed towards other scientist, and conservationists. Someone who was at least in 11th grade could understand the study. It was not a very complicated study but the report was not written for a lay audience. The organization of the document was very good. The sections were broken up. The results were broken up into subheadings which made it easy to see the findings.
Reference:
Brunnschweiler, J.M., & Baensch, H. (2011). Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Relative
Abundance of Bull Sharks from a Tourist Shark Feeding Site in Fiji. Plos one,6(1), doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0016597.
"Dolphin Shows and Interaction Programs: Benefits for Conservation Education?" Evaluation
Summary:
Dolphins and other marine organisms are being threatened due to anthropogenic factors. Dolphins are effected by overfishing, pollution, and boating. Educational programs in aquariums are set up through shows and interactive programs to teach people about the marine environment and conservation. This study's goal is to see if these programs are effective in helping educate the public.
This study was conducted to see if attending dolphin shows and going to interactive dolphin programs would change a persons behavior, attitude, and/or conservation knowledge. A survey was given to individuals over the age of 18 who either attended a dolphin show or interactive program, or did not. Surveys were given to participants before their experience, directly after their experience, and three months after. The surveys asked questions about the participants general knowledge, conservation behaviors, attitude toward conservation and overall experience.
The results showed that the experience was entertaining and for the interactive program it was an experience of a lifetime. After both shows, the audience had an increase in conservation interest both long term and short term. Participants had increased interest in dolphins and marine animals. The number of dolphin shows the participant attended seemed to be a factor in their interests. Overall, both interactive and non interactive dolphin shows were successful in educating the public on conservation efforts regarding the oceans.
Evaluation:
This report seemed to be very accurate. The authors went into great detail about the experiment that took place. They did not leave out any details and the experiment made sense. The report had all the parts that were necessary to be an accurate report. The report was clear. The headings clarify each step of the process. The authors explain why they did the experiment, how they did it, and what they found as results. The experiment is ethical because all participants knew what they were participating in and why. The experiment itself was ethical because the goal was to determine how to educate people on marine conservation. The report was very easy to read. The reading level was at a low level that I could easily understand. There weren't too many big words and the sentence structure is not complex. I think that the report was overall satisfying to the reader.
The purpose of this report was to explain what the experiment was, how it was conducted, and what the results were. The audience was directed to a lay audience. The vocab was not complicated and it was easy to follow. The study was not hard to follow. The organization of the document was easy to follow. The headings made it clear as to what they did in the experiment.
Reference:
Miller, L.J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mellen, J., Koeppel, J., Greer, T., & Kuczaj, S. (2012). Dolphin Shows
and Interaction Programs: Benefits for Conservation Education?. Zoo Biology, 32. 45-53.
Dolphins and other marine organisms are being threatened due to anthropogenic factors. Dolphins are effected by overfishing, pollution, and boating. Educational programs in aquariums are set up through shows and interactive programs to teach people about the marine environment and conservation. This study's goal is to see if these programs are effective in helping educate the public.
This study was conducted to see if attending dolphin shows and going to interactive dolphin programs would change a persons behavior, attitude, and/or conservation knowledge. A survey was given to individuals over the age of 18 who either attended a dolphin show or interactive program, or did not. Surveys were given to participants before their experience, directly after their experience, and three months after. The surveys asked questions about the participants general knowledge, conservation behaviors, attitude toward conservation and overall experience.
The results showed that the experience was entertaining and for the interactive program it was an experience of a lifetime. After both shows, the audience had an increase in conservation interest both long term and short term. Participants had increased interest in dolphins and marine animals. The number of dolphin shows the participant attended seemed to be a factor in their interests. Overall, both interactive and non interactive dolphin shows were successful in educating the public on conservation efforts regarding the oceans.
Evaluation:
This report seemed to be very accurate. The authors went into great detail about the experiment that took place. They did not leave out any details and the experiment made sense. The report had all the parts that were necessary to be an accurate report. The report was clear. The headings clarify each step of the process. The authors explain why they did the experiment, how they did it, and what they found as results. The experiment is ethical because all participants knew what they were participating in and why. The experiment itself was ethical because the goal was to determine how to educate people on marine conservation. The report was very easy to read. The reading level was at a low level that I could easily understand. There weren't too many big words and the sentence structure is not complex. I think that the report was overall satisfying to the reader.
The purpose of this report was to explain what the experiment was, how it was conducted, and what the results were. The audience was directed to a lay audience. The vocab was not complicated and it was easy to follow. The study was not hard to follow. The organization of the document was easy to follow. The headings made it clear as to what they did in the experiment.
Reference:
Miller, L.J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mellen, J., Koeppel, J., Greer, T., & Kuczaj, S. (2012). Dolphin Shows
and Interaction Programs: Benefits for Conservation Education?. Zoo Biology, 32. 45-53.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Long Distance Movements of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins and other species of Bottlenose Dolphins
Summary:
This study was performed in order to find out the paterns of migration of Bottlenose dolphins in the Oita region, where they came from, and their range. This study took place in Kyushu, Japan, in Western Japan.
First, the crew interviewed locals to find where there were sitings of dolphins so they had areas where they could begin to look for pods. Then they set off and looked for dolphins themselves. Some used just their eyes and others used binoculars to look for the dolphins. The crew could tell the difference between common Bottlenose dolphins and Indo-Pacific Bottlenose dolphins by their dorsal fins. The crew followed and tracked these different pods and species of dolphins.
They found Indo-Pacific dolphins in Tsukumi Bay which was 2 kilometers west from where they were first sited. Then the group was observed going southwest along the coast. Two groups of Common Bottlenosed dolphins were sighted. One group was traveling east from Tsukumi Bay.The second group was found in Usuki Bay. The Common Bottlenosed dolphins were found in deep sea water whereas the Indo-Pacific Bottlenosed were found in shallow waters.
The Indo-Pacific Bottlenosed dolphins were first sighted in the Oita area. The crew also found two groups of Common Bottlenosed dolphins and tracked them for two years in areas that Indo-Pacific dolphins inhabited as well. However, the Common Bottlenosed inhabited deeper depths than the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific dolphins could be found within a small area and very easily. They had a distinct migratory pattern. Common dolphins are found in a wider range of areas in temperate, tropical marine areas.
Evaluate:
The purpose of this report on the migration and range of dolphins, was to explain what the study was, how they cinducted the study and what they found as results. This report was written to inform the audience of what occured during the experiment and what was found.
The audience for this report for a low-tech audience. The vocabulary was not complicated but there were no definitions. Some of the terminology could have been unclear to a lay audience. The report discusses locations, anatomy, and bodies of water that might be unclear to a lay audience. This report was not written at a fourth grade level.
The organization was formated well. The report had headings for the introduction, methods and tools, results, and discussion. It also had subheadings further describing the data and observations the crew made. The report also had graphics and tables that neatly organized the data that was found.
This report was easy to read, clear, and accurate. The report was also ethical. Overall, the report clearly told the audience what the study was, what they did, and what the results were.
Work Cited
This study was performed in order to find out the paterns of migration of Bottlenose dolphins in the Oita region, where they came from, and their range. This study took place in Kyushu, Japan, in Western Japan.
First, the crew interviewed locals to find where there were sitings of dolphins so they had areas where they could begin to look for pods. Then they set off and looked for dolphins themselves. Some used just their eyes and others used binoculars to look for the dolphins. The crew could tell the difference between common Bottlenose dolphins and Indo-Pacific Bottlenose dolphins by their dorsal fins. The crew followed and tracked these different pods and species of dolphins.
They found Indo-Pacific dolphins in Tsukumi Bay which was 2 kilometers west from where they were first sited. Then the group was observed going southwest along the coast. Two groups of Common Bottlenosed dolphins were sighted. One group was traveling east from Tsukumi Bay.The second group was found in Usuki Bay. The Common Bottlenosed dolphins were found in deep sea water whereas the Indo-Pacific Bottlenosed were found in shallow waters.
The Indo-Pacific Bottlenosed dolphins were first sighted in the Oita area. The crew also found two groups of Common Bottlenosed dolphins and tracked them for two years in areas that Indo-Pacific dolphins inhabited as well. However, the Common Bottlenosed inhabited deeper depths than the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific dolphins could be found within a small area and very easily. They had a distinct migratory pattern. Common dolphins are found in a wider range of areas in temperate, tropical marine areas.
Evaluate:
The purpose of this report on the migration and range of dolphins, was to explain what the study was, how they cinducted the study and what they found as results. This report was written to inform the audience of what occured during the experiment and what was found.
The audience for this report for a low-tech audience. The vocabulary was not complicated but there were no definitions. Some of the terminology could have been unclear to a lay audience. The report discusses locations, anatomy, and bodies of water that might be unclear to a lay audience. This report was not written at a fourth grade level.
The organization was formated well. The report had headings for the introduction, methods and tools, results, and discussion. It also had subheadings further describing the data and observations the crew made. The report also had graphics and tables that neatly organized the data that was found.
This report was easy to read, clear, and accurate. The report was also ethical. Overall, the report clearly told the audience what the study was, what they did, and what the results were.
Work Cited
Shirakihara, M., Shirakihara, K., Nishiyama, M., Iida, T., & Amano, M. (2012). Long-Distance Movements of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) and Habitat Preference of Two Species of Bottlenose Dolphins in Eastern Kyushu, Japan. Aquatic Mammals, 38(2), 145-152. doi:10.1578/AM.38.2.2012.145
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)