LITERATURE CRITIQUE
DUE:
The
objectives of the literature critique are to give you some contact with
the
primary literature and some experience with critically evaluating
limnological
studies. This literature critique will
be a summary (in your own words!!!) and
evaluation of two papers, one a
citation classic that you may hear or have heard about in lecture,
and one
a recent paper on the same topic.
Choose ONE of the ‘citation classics’ and
listed below (linked on the website), and find at least one recent
(<5 years
old) paper on the same topic. Read them
carefully, and write a report describing:
1.
The
major ideas and
hypotheses addressed by the author(s).
2.
The
approach taken to answer
the question(s).
3.
The
conclusion(s) reached.
4.
Your
assessment of whether
the author(s) have built a convincing case (With explanations of your
assessment – for example, did the authors do anything that you would
have done
differently? Were there any methodological problems?
Did the authors answer their question
adequately? Did they have too much
speculation and not enough data? If
everything looks good, what else might have been done or could be done
next to
improve the study?)
5.
What
you think
the long-term contribution of the paper to Limnology has been (if any).
6.
Whether
ideas in
the paper have subsequently been either validated or disproven (or some
of
each).
7.
Any
impressions
you have of differences in style or method between this older paper and
newer
research.
8.
Does
this classic
citation deserve to be referenced so much?
9.
Has
aquatic
science made much progress on this topic since the publication of the
paper?
10.
What
did you
learn from the paper (if anything)
Your
papers should be clearly written and ~5-10 pages long.
The format is up to you, but you may want to
consult Wetzel, your readings, or more papers if you need more
background
material to evaluate the study. Copies
of each article are on the website (available from campus) – follow the
literature review link. If you would
like to choose a different classic aquatic paper for review, please see
me.
Azam, F., T. Fenchel, J.G. Field, J.S. Gray, L.A. Meyer-Reil and F. Thingstad. 1983. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10: 257-263.
Brooks, J.L. and S.I. Dodson. 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28-35.
Forbes, S.A. 1887. The lake as a microcosm. Bulletin of the Peoria Scientific Association, pp. 77-87. Reprinted in Bulletin of the Illinois State Natural History Survey 15 (1925): 537-550.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1961. The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist 95 (882): 137-145.
Lindeman, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic of ecology. Ecology 23: 399-418.
Redfield, A.C. 1958. The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. American Scientist 46: 205-221.
Schindler,
D.W. 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes:
Implications
for lake management. Science 184: 897-899.
Vannote , R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W.
Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum
concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.