The two articles that are being compared are based off research by the University of Maryland, Horn Point Laboratory. The research has to do with the concentration of N2O in the oceans and how this can affect the earth’s climate. The results of the research show that areas in the ocean that are hypoxic (dead) contribute a significant amount of marine N2O, approximately 50%. This is important because marine/atmospheric N2O can have a serious effect on the ozone layer. This is a serious problem because the research shows that hypoxic areas are likely to expand, thus increasing the amount on N2O in the atmosphere; this could then cause more damage to an already damaged ozone layer. The relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide
(N2O) is an important issue that is discussed in both the primary and secondary sources. The relationship was that changes in atmospheric N2O have roughly paralleled the change in CO2; this is important because it shows that humans have an impact in the production of both terrestrial and marine N2O. This is because the increased production of marine N2O is partially due to the damage we have done to the oceans; in terms of water pollution and acid rain from air pollution. A key point of information that is shown in both the primary journal is that we should pay more attention to this issue of growing hypoxic areas in the ocean, as it has a direct impact on humans as well as other life on Earth.
The picture above shows the present-day and future levels of hypoxic water off the oceanic eastern boundary. The future levels depict a significant rise in the amount of hypoxic water in this area. The levels may increase so drastically that they extend all the way to shore. (these hypoxic areas extend far further away from land than is shown)
When comparing and contrasting a primary and secondary source one of the most important things you should look for is a difference in the main point of the article. As it turns out there is a slight difference between the main points in the two articles. The main point of the secondary article is, “The increased frequency and intensity of oxygen-deprived “dead zones” along the world’s coasts can negatively impact environmental conditions in far more than local waters” (Science Daily 2010). This is a very vague point, it explains that increasing “dead zones” will negatively impact more than just local climate; it does not however explain what and how it will affect other things, nor does it explain the severity. This is to be expected from a secondary source because a secondary source is used to provide the basic and most important information to a non-generalized audience. I anyone wishes to learn more than they would most likely go and read the primary source. The main point of the primary source is, “Although present in minute concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere, nitrous oxide (N2O) is a highly potent greenhouse gas. It is also becoming a factor in stratospheric ozone destruction” (Codispoti 2010). The point here is not vague at all; it is clearly explaining the problem, and it tells the reader what nitrous oxide is and what it can cause to the planet. By comparing the two articles you see that claims from the primary source are stronger than the ones from the secondary source. This is to be expected because the author of the primary source is typically someone with far superior knowledge on the subject in discussion.
While comparing the two articles it is extremely easy to pick out the limitations of each source. Limitations can be defined as how much information the reader can obtain by reading the article. The author of each article can only incorporate a certain amount of information, so eventually each article will reach its limitation. It is really easy to find the limitations of the secondary source, simply because it is based off the most important information from the primary source. An example of this in the secondary source occurs when the author states, “With low-oxygen water currently producing about half of the ocean’s net nitrous oxide, we could see an additional significant atmospheric increase if the “dead zones” continue to expand” (Science Daily 2010). The limitations in this statement are as follows: this statement does not explain why/how low-oxygen waters produce the nitrous oxide nor does it explain how an increase in marine nitrous oxide will have an impact on the atmosphere. It is simply stating an important observation made in the primary source.
The limitations on a primary source are different than those on a secondary source. The ideas and the work that are presented in the primary source are limited by the parameters of the research. An example of this in the primary source is, “Net N2O in the open ocean is [approximately] 1.4 × 1011 mol (6Tg of N) per year. About half of this production occurs in hypoxic and suboxic waters, and the rest in more oxygenated waters” (Codispoti 2010). This particular statement is being based off the observations that were made during the experimental stage of this study; therefore any conclusions made are limited by the quality and amount of data collected. By introducing quantitative data the work is also limited another way. Even though primary source journals are directed at the scientific community, there will be individuals who read this and have no idea what is being said. Another limitation on this primary source is that the quantity of numbers and information may confuse the reader.
Both the primary and secondary source had their different strengths and their weaknesses; however the purpose of each was exactly the same. The purpose was to raise awareness of the growing impact hypoxia may have on our planet. The primary source achieved this by including a thorough amount of information and data, this allowed professor Codispoti to explain his study in detail. The secondary source achieved this by including the most important information and making it really easy to understand. A way they did this was by not incorporating any complicated data. These are just some of the things you should look for when comparing a primary journal and its secondary article.
References:
Secondary Source:
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "Aquatic 'Dead Zones' Contributing to Climate Change." ScienceDaily 12 March 2010. 23 September 2010
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311141213.htm.
Primary Source: Oceans – “Interesting time for marine N2O”. The primary journal was written by Louis A. Codispoti.
Science 12 March 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5971, pp. 1339 - 1340
DOI: 10.1126/science.1184945
Codispoti, Louis A. "InterestingTimes for Marine N2O." Sciencemag 327.5971 (2010). Print.
Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5971/1339
No comments:
Post a Comment