WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper A. Abstract B. Introduction C. Methods D. Results E. Discussion F. Lit. Cited

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - inverted funnel – specific to general

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - inverted funnel – specific to general - “mirror image” of your intro… must bear some relationship to introductory topics – answering the questions posed and relating the conclusions to the background topics.

Structure and Scope of a Review Paper WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - might even begin with a restatement of the purpose: “The goal of this experiment was to describe the effects of intra- and interspecific interactions on two species of mycophagous Drosophila that co-occur in nature: Drosophila putrida and Drosophila tripunctata.”

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - might even begin with a restatement of the purpose: - then, summarize results:

There were several indications that increasing the density of D There were several indications that increasing the density of D. putrida adults affected the abundance and condition of offspring. Although there were no statistically significant differences between low and high intraspecific density treatments, treatments, the median number of offspring, pupa per adult, offspring per adult, and percentage of pupa completing development to emergence were all greater in the low density treatment than in the high density treatment. In addition, although mean female dry mass was unrelated to metamorph density, mean dry mass of male D. putrida was negatively correlated with the number of male metamorphs and the total number of D. putrida metamorphs to marginally significant degrees. Collectively, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that increasing intraspecific density had weak but consistently negative effects on D. putrida productivity. The effects of interspecific competition on D. putrida were slightly more pronounced. The number of pupae, pupae per adult, total number of offspring, and offspring per adult were all lower in the presence of D. tripunctata, with statistically significant decreases in number of pupae and pupae/adult, and marginally significant declines in number of offspring. There was also a marginally significant effect on developmental rate. In low density replicates, D. putrida emerged successfully across several days. However, at high density, a greater fraction of metamorphs emerged early. The pattern was even more dramatic with an interspecific competitor, where 75% of emerging D. putrida emerged early.

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - might even begin with a restatement of the purpose: - then, summarize results: - then, relate this to basic topics in introduction:

As …. suggest, intra and interspecific competition can have important effects on the productivity of competing fly species. Yaddah-yaddah-yaddah The reduction in offspring number is obviously an important fitness cost. In addition, the reduction in fly size with increasing density is also an important selective pressure. Smaller flies are more susceptible to extremes of climate, and smaller flies usually lay fewer eggs and have a lower chance of mating. Symmetrical competition? Priority effects?

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - problems – don’t dwell!

The most significant shortcoming of this experiment was that, by using adult density as the independent variable, it was difficult to determine the actual mechanism by which the species were competing. Adults could compete for mates Adults could compete for egg-laying sites Competition could be for access to the resource, or for the resource, itself. However, it does appear that there is larval competition occurring – as mean mass declined with metamorph size – which would not occur if there were ONLY competition among adults that were added.

The most significant shortcoming of this experiment was that, by using adult density as the independent variable, it was difficult to determine the actual mechanism by which the species were competing. Adults could compete for mates Adults could compete for egg-laying sites Competition could be for access to the resource, or for the resource, itself. However, it does appear that there is larval competition occurring – as mean mass declined with metamorph size – which would not occur if there were ONLY competition among adults that were added. Another problem with the design was the failure to use consistent sex ratios within and across treatments. Although single females are certainly capable of laying over 300 eggs each – which would certainly be a high enough density to create a competitive environment – the lack of standardization within and across treatments undoubtedly increased the variation in larval and metamorph number and probably contributed to the lack of significance in many treatment comparisons.

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion - problems – don’t dwell! - leave the reader with some sense of the contribution that this study makes, while also suggesting what still remains to be addressed.

This study demonstrated that natural densities of adult drosophilids can create competitive densities in larval commuities. However, many questions remain. Perhaps the most significant issue is the pervasiveness of these effects. As Shorrocks and coworkers have suggested, the patchy and ephemeral nature of the resource may mean that, although competition may be intense, it is infrequent. Further experiments must address these metapopulational issues.

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion F. Abstract

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion F. Abstract - a sentence or two from each section; maybe more from results.

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion A. Abstract - a sentence or two from each section; maybe more from results.

WRITING PAPERS General Comments Structure and Scope of a Review Paper Structure of a Primary Research Paper E. Discussion A. Abstract F. Literature Cited Council of Science Editors Style – Juniata Penn State FU

The