Evaluating how habitat and biodiversity influences pathogen prevalence in pollinator diseases
Sindy Hernandez
Division of Science, City College of New York
ENGL 21007 D2
Professor Sara Jacobson
March 20, 2023
Constructing a lab report is no simple task as it contains 8 different elements: title, abstract, introduction, materials, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The first report that will be assessed is titled “Habitat quality influences pollinator pathogen prevalence through both habitat–disease and biodiversity–disease pathways” by Fearon et.al (2023) and the second lab report titled “Conservation measures or hotspots of disease transmission? Agri-environment schemes can reduce disease prevalence in pollinator communities” by Manley et al. (2023), readers will learn about the effect that habitat quality and biodiversity have on the prevalence and viral load of diseases on pollinators. Using the 8 elements (excluding title and method) an evaluation will be conducted to see why each author decided to format and present their reports in the ways they did. Both lab reports mention how the habitat of the bees can have a major impact on pathogen prevalence within their separate species. They both used 3-43-4 different species of bees to find how the different species would react to the different habitats as well as biodiversity. They also look to find what species abundance and species richness may have. Although these authors are researching similar topics in hopes of finding a concrete answer, they all formatted their reports in a way that would cast out their findings the best.
Abstract
An abstract provides readers with the study’s aim, the method, materials, results, and conclusions drawn from the research. Both reports did exactly that as they introduced the topic that will be researched and what drew them to research the topic. Manley et al. (2023) first stated, “…conservation measures such as the EU agri-environment schemes (AES) promote wildflowers along fields. However, this can potentially alter disease ecology by serving as transmission hubs or by diluting infections.” In the first two sentences of the abstract, the authors clearly mention why they are doing the research and their concerns. The following sentences will show how they Conducted their research. They state, “We tested this by measuring plant-pollinator interactions and virus infections (DWV-A, DWV-B, and ABPV) across pollinator communities in agricultural landscapes over a year.” From this, readers can see how the authors decided to conduct their research and what diseases they were looking for in their research. They also mention the location which is a landscape that would be in Europe since the previous sentence mentioned EU agri-environmental schemes. The report also provides the findings and conclusions drawn from the research. They how they found that AES helped reduce the prevalence of DWV-B in honeybees whereas DWV-A was reduced with both AES and niche overlap. ABPV’s prevalence was dependent on the number of bumblebees in the community. From these findings, the authors provided conclusions, and I noticed they did differently, providing a solution for the future of pollination conservation. The solution they gave was to support pollinator nutrition to mitigate the transmission of these diseases. Manley et al. (2023) followed all the steps necessary to make a proper abstract which makes it easier for readers with an overview of the full report.
As aforementioned, a good abstract consists of the study’s aim, the method, materials, results, and conclusions drawn from the research. Fearon et al. (2023) start by defining the dilution effect which will be mentioned many times in the report. This is helpful for readers since they might not know what the dilution effect means. Influenced by the dilution effect, the authors state that the habit and biodiversity of the community can impact the pathogen prevalence. They then go on to provide their findings and how they used path models showcasing the relationship between habitat, biodiversity, and pathogen prevalence to find said results. After presenting their findings readers will see how pathogen prevalence varied based on species and the different viruses. After presenting their findings Fearon et al. They presented their conclusions in a simple manner. They covered all the bases need to formulate a cohesive abstract for the readers.
Introduction
Having a good introduction is vital to any form of writing. It provides context to what will be discussed in the following paragraphs to come and gives insight to the readers on what the topic is so that they know what they will be reading about. Authors should also include definitions of words that may be foreign to readers as well as the relevancy of their study and their hypothesis and predictions. Manley et al. (2023) provided readers with the significance of their research as well as the steps they took, their purpose, and their predictions. Their study states, “Wild and managed pollinator species, which are essential both for maintaining food security and biodiversity by pollinating crops and wildflowers [8], have experienced declines and extinctions driven by the interacting anthropogenic pressures of habitat loss, environmental stressors, and emerging diseases” From this, readers can already see why the authors decided to study this since it is a growing concern for the future. They further go on to say, “Understanding how conservation and restoration measures such as planting wildflower strips affect disease transmission. Prevalence and pathogen load is key to the mitigation of diseases and conservation of wild bees.” Here, the authors go on to show the purpose of their study and how they’re conducting this study on the bees and their interactions with the wildflower strips to better understand how to mitigate disease in order to conserve bees. Similarly, Fearon et al. Also provide necessary definitions, context, purpose, and what they are hoping to find. The authors noticed that there have been no studies to date that test the relationship between biodiversity and habitat on disease. They also clearly state to their readers the goal of their study which is to determine both the direct and indirect effects of habitat on pathogen prevalence in order to better understand its implications. Definitions are also important for readers to understand what they are reading about and what it means in terms of the study. That’s why the authors provide definitions for the dilution effect hypothesis and other key terms like habitat-disease relationship.
Materials
After reading both reports a difference that I had found between them is that Manley et al. (2023) had a material and method section whereas Fearon et al. (2023) decided to not include a materials section. Because of the way that both reports did their research, Fearon et al. probably saw no need to make a separate materials section since it can all be described with the method section. Due to the same reasoning, readers can see why Manley et al. decided to put materials and methods in the same section. The material that Fearon et al. decided to write about is the site selection and flower density. They describe why they decided to pick the 10 farms in central/southern England and the distance of the farms. Furthermore, they gave the length and location of the transects being used in their research as well as the flowering units of flowering species. Overall, Manley et al. decided to take a different approach and make a material and methods section to provide readers with a better understanding of how the material and methods coincide and the measure they needed to take in order for the research to come out well.
Results
After conducting your study, you must present your findings in the form of graphs, charts, and models. Both studies used different types of models and graphs based on how they wanted to represent their findings. Fearon et al. (2023) used path models to represent their hypothesized pathways which showed how they strongly believed that a good habit would cause the bees to have lower pathogen prevalence. However, in their final path model, they show the results that they got in an unbiased matter. The Final path model shows how the results varied based on species and disease type. Furthermore, they used a graph to show the different types of factors and how prevalent each disease was when you added more of each different factor. All graphs and models were clear and included a figure section to give a brief description of what the graphs are telling you. Graphs may seem a bit intimidating but both studies made them easy to understand. In Manley et al. (2023) they had a wider range of graphs to show their results. Each of which shows how there are many factors that influence how bees will react to good habitats and more or less biodiversity. They also show their predictions versus the results that they actually got. Each graph has a legend so that readers can have an easier time interpreting each graph, chart, and model. These studies present their results in an unbiased matter and showed how some of their predictions weren’t necessarily right and some were. This shows readers how nothing is ever concrete in the beginning.
Discussion
The discussion is important because it allows the authors to take a step back and review their findings and see any flaws that there might be. Both reports compared their research to other studies done to either show that it aligned with their findings or if they didn’t. According to the report it states, “This result aligns with other studies on pollinators at more local scales. For example, Daughenbaugh et al. [81] showed that the probability of AnBV-1 infection in honeybees is greater in habitats with low floral diversity…” (Manley et al., 2023) Here readers can see how the authors compared their research to other studies and found that it supported theirs. They saw that flower diversity did play a role in pathogen prevalence. The more flowers the merrier and flowers helped prevent bees from catching diseases. Fearon et al. (2023) also compared their findings to other studies. In their study, it states, “We found that pollinators in areas with more land-cover types (i.e., landscape richness) and natural area had greater BQCV prevalence Figueroa et al. (2020) found a similar relationship where simpler landscapes with greater agricultural cover reduced parasite prevalence in the pollinator community…” In their discussion, they compared results and drew conclusions from their findings as well as what others have also found. In this example, readers can see how both studies found that landscape influences the bees’ foraging choices which also influences the pathogen prevalence. Both reports assessed their findings and compared it with others in order to make a more solid conclusion.
Conclusion
To wrap up your whole lab report, your conclusion should restate the study’s aim and purpose as well as the main results and limitations of their findings. Both reports start off by mentioning their results again. However, Manley et al. (2023) included the limitations of their study and what needs to be done. They state, “However, these measures require both careful design and further monitoring. Our year-long observations showed that beneficial effects of HLS schemes were limited to certain time periods.” From this, readers can see that their findings varied due to time and that time played a crucial part in showing the benefits of HLS schemes. It needs further studying and needs to be monitored closely since it is heavily reliant on the time of the seasons. Besides limitations, Fearon et al. (2023) summarized their findings and what their results indicated. They emphasize the important role that habitat plays in influencing pathogen prevalence and species interactions. Both were concise and straight forward in summarizing their research and findings and what their findings mean for the future.
Understanding the elements needed to execute a proper lab report is fundamental because these studies can have an effect on readers and the future. Both Fearon et al. (2023) and Manley et al. (2023) formatted their work in a way that would best fit the type of research that they conducted. They used different models to present their findings which ultimately gives readers similar answers. They recorded their results in different ways and they used different types of models based on how they wanted to present it. Both of their studies showed that more research has to be done on this in order to get more concrete answers since time was a prime factor that influenced their results.
Works Cited
Manley, R., Doublet, V., Wright, O. N., Doyle, T., Refoy, I., Hedges, S., Pascall, D., Carvell, C., Brown, M. J. F., & Wilfert, L. (2023). Conservation measures or hotspots of disease transmission? Agri-environment schemes can reduce disease prevalence in pollinator communities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1873). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0004
Fearon, M. L., Wood, C. L., & Tibbetts, E. A. (2023). Habitat quality influences pollinator pathogen prevalence through both habitat–disease and biodiversity–disease pathways. Ecology, 104(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3933
Reflection
Throughout reading the two lab reports and writing this essay explaining the formatting, I felt challenged. I decided to pick a topic that I felt best fit me and what I like to learn about, so I chose insects. At first, I enjoyed the reading, but both reports had similar information, so I felt like I was reading the same thing repeatedly. This did not take away from what I learned, which is something I would not have learned if it were not for this assignment. One thing I would first like to talk about is the process of finding these two lab reports. I was a bit confused about whether the two lab reports had to be researching the same issue within the topic or just the same topic. However, I found two reports experimenting with similar things but both taking a different approach. Both were researching how habitat quality can affect the prevalence and viral load of diseases in pollinators. The diseases mentioned in the reports were DWV-A, DWV-B, ABPV. While reading these reports, I was challenged as I was always used to only reading certain paragraphs like the abstract, introduction, results, and conclusion of lab reports. I did this because I know where I needed to look in order to quickly get the information that I needed. This assignment allowed me to take the time to thoroughly read the lab reports and see what technical writing goes behind these reports.
Finding a way to format this paper was another struggle for me but I soon found out what to do. I decided to section the paper based on the lab report elements with the exclusion of the method and title. I thought this would be easier because it allows me to break apart the lab report and individually see what the authors wrote and how they formatted it. I realized that reading was probably the hardest part but having everything annotated made it easier for me to find the information that I needed. Overall, this was definitely a learning experience and learned what mindset to have in future assignments.
