AP Biology Ethan Reich
CE Review #1 10/14/15
For my current event, I read the article “Plants That Are Predators” by Natalie Angier. Increasingly, researchers are studying carnivorous plants, plants that eat other organisms and obtain nutrients from them. Typically, biologists classify plants as producers, not heterotrophs. That’s why these carnivorous plants are so unusual and interesting. In light of recent discoveries, scientists have discovered numerous distinguishing qualities of these carnivorous plants. First, one group of scientists determined that certain species of carnivorous plants actually attract their prey by changing into certain shapes that attract the prey. For example, the pitcher plant, attracts “…bats to roost — and void — in its slender goblet of a modified leaf by tuning its shape to precisely match the bats’ echolocating calls.” Another discovery comes from Darwin’s fascination: the Venus flytrap. Recently, a separate group of scientists decoded the complete genome (DNA sequence) of the Venus flytrap, which is about the same size as the human genome. Interestingly, this genome shows shocking connections to their insect counterparts. Showing even more genomic similarities to the carnivorous plants are non-carnivorous plants. It has been shown through protein and hormone research that carnivorous plants derived their ability to “pulverize and absorb their insect prey by repurposing the defensive chemicals that ordinary plants use to deter herbivorous insects.” All in all, these carnivorous plants are an interesting category of organisms, one that yields increasing connections to other plants, insects, and even human beings as more and more evidence is discovered.
At first glance, research of carnivorous plants seems like no more than a biologist’s escapade. Indeed, they do not seem to have any connection to practical applications of science (and thus humans) whatsoever. However, as we learn an increasing amount about these plants, we also learn about their evolution, and how they became the plants they are today. Certain DNA aspects of the Venus flytrap genome, when compared to the genomes of other organisms, shed light on possible common ancestors, giving us clues about how they evolved. These genomic similarities, besides providing additional evidence for Darwin’s all-encompassing theory of evolution, connect to human life because direct comparisons can be drawn between these carnivorous insects and humans. Certain genes, if found mutated and cancerous in the insect, correspond to other organisms’ (even humans’) genes, allowing us to experiment, draw critical conclusions, and connect. Overall, this research has particular and widespread practicality in the real world.
Overall, this article was very well written. The source itself, the New York Times, has a reputation for being one of the strongest newspapers in the country. No grammatical errors were made within the article (as one would expect from a paper like the NYT), and the article itself flowed smoothly from point to point. Finally, the author did a good job of incorporating quotes into her article, corroborating her points with direct outside information. One thing I felt the author could have done better is elaborate on the different groups of scientists’ laboratory procetures. However, all in all, this article was a fun read.
Angier, Natalie. "Plants That Are Predators." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/plants-that-are-predators.html?ref=topics>.
This article review was very insightful and interesting to read. Ethan did a good job of describing the scientific information in a clear and precise way. His summary of the article was very easy to understand and it is clear that he is familiar with the vocabulary that he uses, such as autotrophs and heterotrophs. He also does a good job of establishing the article’s credibility by explaining that the New York Times published it. It made the article seem credible and factual when I read it. He also did a great job of establishing a connection between the information presented in the article and society. He discusses that the study of carnivorous plants sheds light on topics such as evolution, which I would not have thought about prior to reading his review.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were not many aspects of the review that I would change, it would have been beneficial to delve more into the scientific aspects of this article. I was left curious about the specific ties to humans that carnivorous plants that Ethan mentioned in the second paragraph, but they are not explained further after that. It would have been great if he elaborated on some of the research and discoveries that he refers to. Another change that he could consider would be elaborating more on how the article could have been improved. I think that he makes a very valid point about expanding on the laboratory procedures, but he does not go on to say in detail why that would contribute to the article. If Ethan mentioned how that would improve the article, it would have strengthened his review even more.
I learned a lot by reading this review and feel like it was interesting to read. I chose to read this review because it seemed like an intriguing topic. Learning that the study of scientific topics such as carnivorous plants have more relevance to human genomes changed my perception of evolution and how genetically connected certain organisms can be despite vastly different appearances.
Ethan did a great job of reviewing this interesting article on the topic of carnivorous plants. The summary of the article was easy to understand and concise, and helped me to understand the importance of the new findings in this field. Ethan also described each new discovery and explained its respective relevance to each area of scientific study. He made clear the connection between the evolution of these plants and the evolution of humans, a topic of increasing relevance and importance .
ReplyDeleteThough Ethan discussed a multitude of recent discoveries found and explained its connection to modern science, it would have been helpful if he had explained more thoroughly the circumstances surrounding the discovery; this would have helped broaden my understanding of the topic. Additionally, Ethan did not discuss his thoughts on the topic or article, which I would have liked to have read. It would have been interesting to see what Ethan thought of the article, as he had much spent time reading and researching about it.
Finally, I enjoyed all aspects of Ethan’s review and look forward to reading more about the interesting topic of carnivorous plants. Before reading this article, I had not known of the increasingly important connection scientists and researchers are finding between plant and human evolution.
Great job Ethan! You had some really strong parts of your review and I enjoyed reading it. I thought you had a really great explanation and summary that really clarified what the article was about and gave all the information in a concise way. You also had a relevant outside connection about DNA and evolution that really resonated with me. Finally, it was a strong addition to include an analysis on the New York Times and how reliable it is as a newspaper.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this report was especially good, there were still a few things you could work on. I think the review would have been better if you included some quotes from a scientist to get a better feel of their ideas on the topic. Also, while you talked almost extensively about how reliable the Times is, he was very limited in his comments on how the article could have been improved. After reading the article myself, I found a few things that could have been improved upon, which you didn’t mention.
This article was a very interesting and engaging read. I learned a lot about carnivorous plants and how they relate to humans; one thing in particular was how the recently decoded genome of the venus fly trap was shockingly similar to humans and even the insect relatives as well. It was fascinating to read about something like this that I went into without knowing anything about the topic and ending up learning a bunch about it.
Angier, Natalie. "Plants That Are Predators." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. .
Ethan,
ReplyDeleteI thought your review of this article was excellent. One area in which your review excelled was in the incorporation of quotes: the quotes were synthesised flawlessly adding both information and an appeal to the authority of the respective biologists and researchers. I also felt that you did a good job of summarizing the article. Having had no encounters with carnivorous plants, I felt you provided sufficient background for me to understand the article without providing surplus information. Lastly, you summed up the importance of this article well. I found it very interesting how carnivorous plants fall into line in the grand scheme of common ancestry.
You did an excellent job writing your review, but one thing you could improve on is lightening your vocabulary to allow the reader to have time to digest what your reading. You have an especially strong grasp on a diverse academic vocabulary, but it can make some of the paragraphs somewhat dense and difficult to read. Also, including a line, paragraph or page number via parenthetical citation may make finding where the quote is from slightly easier. Again, I thought you did an excellent job with your review.
One thing I gained perspective on from your article is how uniting the theme of common ancestry is. It is always captivating to read an article that really puts this phenomenon to work.
Great job.
Ethan’s review on the article, “Plants That Are Predators,” was very clear and concise while explaining a slightly difficult concept. Ethan specifically did a great job of defining a few terms used in the article that the reader may not have previously known. Also, I really appreciated that he used direct quotes from the article to further enhance his solid summary paragraph. The section of his review describing the relevance of the article to society was very well written and allowed me to have a deeper understanding of the importance of carnivorous plants to evolution. This connection was an idea that I would have never considered before reading his review.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this critique was exceptional, there is still some room for improvement. Ethan’s review of the article could have been even stronger if he continued to explain (with more specific details) the connection between the carnivorous plants and humans. Also, it would have been helpful to read more about other types of plants that are considered carnivorous, rather than just the Venus flytrap, which is a plant that most people already know of. Adding more details regarding other types of carnivorous plants would allow the reader to have an even richer comprehension of this topic.
Before reading this article and this review, I was unaware that the research of carnivorous plants is so current and relevant to our society. The new theory that these plants are connected to the human genome in some way is astounding, and I hope to continue to find more information on this topic in the future.
Ethan,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job reviewing this article with excellent summary and analysis. One specific thing I feel you did very well in doing was giving great background information on the topic of carnivorous plants before you started getting into the explanation of the findings of scientists researching these plants. This leads into my next admiration of your current event review, your explanation of the processes the scientists went through and their findings in their research of these carnivorous plants. A third thing that I enjoyed about this review was the connection that you made of how this relates to society today, explaining how the study of carnivorous plants provides information for things like evolution, a connection that I would not have regularly made without reading this.
Although I enjoyed this review greatly, I found that a couple of things could have been improved upon. One thing that I think you could have done better is if maybe you elaborated a little bit on the ties that these plants have to humans and maybe a little more on their connection to insects through genomes. Another thing I would have liked is if maybe you explained a little more your own opinion of the article and how exactly it influenced you.
One part of this review that really intrigued me was when you discussed the process that the venus flytrap goes through with their ability to “pulverize and absorb their insect prey by repurposing the defensive chemicals that ordinary plants use to deter herbivorous insects.” I found this interesting because plants are not usually thought of as any sort of predator, but this completely undermines that ideal, and is a very interesting topic.
Angier, Natalie. "Plants That Are Predators." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. .
Ford Neild October 21,2015
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 5 Comment
Dear Ethan,
I felt that, overall, you explained the article in very concise manner without skipping over any of the essential details, as many people often do when summarizing. First, You were also able to make a connection to how this seemingly insignificant subject matter affects human today, something that many people struggle with in these current events.Prior to reading your summary I would have never made the connection between plant predators and our own genome. Second, you described the bat-entrapping plant in a very interesting way that held the reader's attention. Often people do not sound passionate when summarizing their current events, but you did a fantastic job of that in this description. The use of the quote, in my opinion, helped add a scientist's description that further captured the reader. Thirdly, your descriptive vocabulary showed real depth of understanding on your part and added additional detail that helped to create a clear image of this previously confusing article.
Though, overall this article was very well written, there is room for improvement yet. Previously, I had commented that your descriptive vocabulary was intelligent and descriptive, however, for many of these words, they were too complex. To fix this, I recommend putting in parentheses the definition of the word. For example, I was not familiar with the terms, heterotroph and autotroph. After doing personal research I found that a heterotroph is an organism that cannot fix carbon and uses organic carbon for growth. In your relevance paragraph, you consistently mention how researching these “predator plants” provides insight into evolution. I was disappointed that you did not give specific example of discoveries that were made as a result of these studies. If these were not mentioned in the article, I recommend doing independent research.
From your summary I learned a lot. Specifically, I enjoyed learning about the bat eating plant because I was fascinated by how the plant had evolved to do such a specific task. As previously mentioned, prior to reading this article I would have never made the connection between these “predator plants” and our own genome. More importantly this helped me realize a much broader truth: just because two things seem unrelated, they may have similarities.
Angier, Natalie. "Plants That Are Predators." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. .
Ethan, well done! I really enjoyed reading your current event. The topic was very interesting and something I had never looked into before. One thing that I really liked about your report was the way that you used specific plant examples, like the pitcher plant, to demonstrate your statement about how plants change their physical shape. I think that really helped us readers picture what you were talking about. Another thing that I really enjoyed about your report was how in your second paragraph, you really made good arguments about why this research was important. At first glance, the topic of carnivorous plants does not seem interesting or something relevant to us, but you pointed out that looking at their DNA can help trace their evolutionary history, giving us information about other, more relevant to us plants. A third aspect of your report that I liked was your clarity in describing topics that could seem complex. Your use of simple language in a not-so-simple topic made it very clear to me as a reader what you were talking about, and allowed me to picture everything you said.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very well reported on by you, but I have two suggestions. My first is to use more direct quotes from the author. You did incorporate a few, but I think that hearing the words of the author or scientist is helpful to a reader in seeing their point of view. It was easy to see why you enjoyed this article, but having quotes from them would allow readers to understand why they conducted this research in the first place. My second suggestion is that in your relevance paragraph it would be interesting for you to further explain why this article drew you in in the first place.
This was fascinating to read. I really learned a lot about a topic I had never read about before. The most interesting part to me was hearing about the pitcher plant that was able to change itself physically in order to attract its prey. Reading this helped me to see the importance of all organisms because they all interact with one another in our world.
Angier, Natalie. "Plants That Are Predators." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. .