Download Sakai comments

Sakai, W.H. 1994. Avian Predation on the Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus
(Nymphalidae: Danainae), at a California Overwintering Site. J. Lepidopt. Soc. 48(2):148-156.
This paper is presented to you as an example of what should be included in your project
paper. The choice of this paper is not so much vanity (I wrote it), but rather I am very familiar
with it. I will go through the paper and provide you with a commentary.
Title: Note that it is a complete title describing exactly what the research was about. One word
titles are for summary and general papers, and very long titles are inappropriate. Catchy and
funny titles are for those with stature (Nobel Laureates).
Introduction: Note that there is a thorough review of the literature. There are eight citations and
two personal communications in this short introduction. Note the method of citations, and note
that all genus species are italicized. The name following the genus species is the person who
first described the species. It is typically required by journals but not necessary for you to
include.
The last two sentences present the “question” I am addressing. The main difference
between your project and what you have learned vs “the real world” is that there is no formal
hypothesis presented. You will find that many papers lack a formal hypothesis, “my hypothesis
is...” Rather one has to read between the lines.
Methods: I first give exact dates and location of the study. For this particular study, the dates
and location are very important as you will see. In your case, the dates and locations may not be
necessary. Ask yourself “does it matter if the experiment was done at SMC or Malibu HS?
Note that the methodology is sparsely presented. Second, it is not a cookbook, and common
knowledge methods are not given. I simply cite Urquhart for the method of tagging. In general,
the reader of a particular journal is usually familiar with the common techniques and/or
methodology of the field. If not, it is up to the reader to look it up! Everything is written in the
past tense.
Note that I mention “special” techniques (12-13-Jan visits) and special terminology used
(Remsen and Robinson, 1990).
Results: Table 1 is slightly out of place. You have been taught to place the Table AFTER
directly after the first page it is mentioned. I am not sure why, but this is common practice in
this journal. I suspect that if it is on the same page, it is ok.
You will also note that the captions are very brief. Most journals do not have the
elaborate captions that Biology 21 teaches you. Look at a handful of journals to get a feel for
what is required. Remember you always write in the style demanded by your journal’s editor. In
this case, the editors are Sakai and Baker.
On p149, I presented a detailed description of one observation. On p150, see that I have
mentioned “special” or “unusual” observations. Note how the statistics are presented for Table
2. I did not present the methodology for the statistics. Again, the reader is expected to know
how to do this or look it up. For Table 3, note my text explains why data are presented from
January onward as compared to Table 2. Next note how Table 4 combines Table 2 and Table 3.
Note how I tried to “tell a story with what I did.”
As an example, this paper does not have a good figure or graph.
Discussion: The discussion begins with a bit of history to set up the fact that the same thing
observed in 1988-89 was then see in 1989-90. Note the source of error. Note that I actually
have taken the liberty of making a suggestion, which is allowed in your discussion.
I next go through the literature comparing (1) other bird predators, (2) rates of predation,
(3) method of predation, (4) mammalian predators, (5) wasp predation, and (6) what I call
predation signature.
Note on p153, I was making observations at 0400 hr, a truly ungodly hour. One carries
out research wherever and whenever it is necessary. Note that this is results that was not
presented in the Results section. Anecdotal observations are often not presented in the Results,
but this is a fuzzy point. Note that I make several comparisons between my observed predation
rate vs what other researchers have found.
I then make a comparison between predation signatures I found vs. what others have
found. The next question was that monarchs are supposed to be poisonous to birds, but the birds
are eating them. Why? I offer several speculations for further study.
Last, I address the question of the tags being a “flag” to attract predators. My data seem
to indicate this is so. Since this was the first attempt by anyone to address this question, I do not
have any literature to cite. I again speculate but do not try to draw any strong conclusions. This
will come when others confirm (or refute) my findings.
Conclusion: Note how short it is.
Acknowledgments for those who helped. Notice that at least six independent sources read
various drafts of this paper. It does not include those with whom I had casual discussions about
this work of which there were many more.
Literature Cited: It included only those cited, but there are 16 citations that date back to 1960.
The most recent citation is 1990. This indicates the breadth of my literature search.
Notice the last line of the paper: I first observed this phenomenon in 1988–89. I designed my
experiment during the following spring and summer. I conducted the experiment in 1989-90.
There were over two dozen visits to this site to collect data. Analysis of the data and various
drafts of this work followed. After input from others (see acknowledgments), I finally submitted
it in February1992. It took one and half more years for reviewers to comment on it, for me to
address their comments, rewrite it, and finally get it published in July 1993
Note the brevity of this paper: Most scientific papers are now very short. There are several
reasons for this. One, journal publication is expensive. Two, there are many worthwhile works
that should be published, so if everyone writes short ones, more can be packed into each issue of
a journal. Three, articles are expensive for the author to publish. I had to pay a per page charge
to publish this work ($30/page). This is even with a discount for being a member of this society.
Notice there are no color picture of my butterfly or the bird. Colors or even black and white
photos probably double the cost per page.