The sources where we obtain information originate on both primary and secondary levels. Primary sources contain first-hand material made about a new topic. For most purposes, they serve as the best account of detail, and most ideal aid in research. In the purpose of this blog, I have chosen an article titled “Influence of Forest Trees on the Distribution of Mineral Weathering-Associated Bacterial Communities of the Scleroderma citrinum Mycorrhizosphere” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). Secondary sources, on the other hand, contain a summary or interpretation of a work previously written. These sources are often focused towards a more open audience. Although very effective for the general public, secondary sources can sometimes misinterpret the primary, and need to be approached with caution for scientific purposes. A secondary account of the report was found on an internet magazine called Science Daily, and is titled “Some Trees ‘Farm’ Bacteria to help supply nutrients” (Science Daily 2010).
The first significant difference lies in the first segment of each article. The primary text first states, “In acidic forest soils, availability of inorganic nutrients is a tree-growth-limiting factor. A hypothesis to explain sustainable forest development proposes that tree roots select soil microbes involved in central biogeochemical processes, such as mineral weathering, that may contribute to nutrient mobilization and tree nutrition” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). This provides a clear understanding of the topic at hand, as well as a clear hypothesis about improving this issue. The primary statement includes all the information required to understand the subject matter scientifically, and is a credible introduction as its status as a hypothesis is clear. The secondary article simply states, “Some trees growing in nutrient-poor forest soil may get what they need by cultivating specific root microbes to create compounds they require” (Science Daily 2010). This statement is much more general than the primary. It suggests the connection between tree and microbes, but in doing so it does not include any detail as to why or how. Why did we initially study these trees? How do microbes “create compounds”? The secondary acts more towards attracting a public audience to the article.
Claims made in primary and secondary articles differ in efficiency and organization. One secondary claim states that “mineral weathering is especially important in acidic forest soils where tree growth can be limited by access to...nutrients” (Science Daily 2010). This is quite a broad assertion. In comparison, the primary article states “The mobilization of nutrients via the biotic and abiotic weathering of soil minerals is crucial to satisfying plant nutritional needs, especially in acidic forest soils, which are mainly nonfertilized and nutrient poor” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). The primary article more clearly specifies that acidic forest soils are nutrient deprived, and that weathering of soil minerals is the mechanism for compensating this deprivation. The sentence contains a concise point and explanation. The statement made in the first sentence is communicating the same idea, but is not as well-organized. The sentence requires support from the surrounding paragraph to convey the concept at hand.
Furthermore, the level of clarity and relevance of information is different for both sources. In this example, both sources describe bacterium’s ability to release iron. The secondary states, “Mineral-weathering bacteria can release necessary nutrients such as iron from soil minerals” (Science Daily 2010). A loose explanation of the concept is all that is needed for public audience. In contrast, the primary accounts, “The culturable bacterial strains isolated from the S. citrinum ectomycorrhizosphere of oak and beech appeared...efficient in acidifying and releasing iron from biotite” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). This statement accounts for only what is observed in this study. Additionally, if an effect is not presently observed, the report includes some explanation supporting an assumption and/or sources leading to where the information was obtained. This is necessary for scientific purposes to sustain clarity of research. Use of words such as “can” or “may”, seen in the secondary literature, simply do not work for this purpose. I could tell you anything “can” happen, but this is not a substantial means of communication in the scientific field.
Additionally, the level of understanding gained about the issue differs entirely from primary source to secondary. While the secondary source does a good job of fulfilling its purpose, that is
to say, informing the general public about the topic, it does not include information which is admittedly basic to the primary. For instance, the secondary article did not inform the public about how interactions between trees and microbes occur. Described in the primary, “By way of their root exudates, plants alter the structure and activity of microbial communities and selectively favor certain ones that are potentially beneficial to them...recent studies have revealed that the oak-Scleroderma citrinum ectomycorrhizal symbiosis selects bacterial communities that are more efficient in mineral weathering than those of surrounding soil, suggesting that the mycorrhizal symbiosis has an indirect effect on plant nutrition through its selective pressure on functional diversity of the mycorrhizosphere bacterial communities” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). The secondary also did not describe some methods used to reach the conclusion, which included measuring acidity and iron levels first in the surrounding soil and then in the rhizosphere of the tree roots. This missing information was not included in the secondary source because much of the audience do not have the capacity to understand it. Although the complexity of the issue is apparent to the author, they are limited in terms of the depth they are able to pursue because of their audience.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the secondary source is much more general than the primary. This is because of the purpose both have been written for. Primary reports are geared towards informing the scientific community about research findings, whereas secondary works are written to inform a public audience about the issue. Although the secondary seems to be less substantial on the whole, it did a good job of fulfilling its purpose, and did not include any falsified information, which is apparent in many secondary sources found today.
References:
1. C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett. Influence of Forest Trees on the Distribution of Mineral Weathering-Associated Bacterial Communities of the Scleroderma citrinum Mycorrhizosphere. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010.
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/76/14/4780
2. Some Trees ‘Farm’ Bacteria to Help Supply Nutrients. Science Daily, July 30 2010.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729172332.htm
The first significant difference lies in the first segment of each article. The primary text first states, “In acidic forest soils, availability of inorganic nutrients is a tree-growth-limiting factor. A hypothesis to explain sustainable forest development proposes that tree roots select soil microbes involved in central biogeochemical processes, such as mineral weathering, that may contribute to nutrient mobilization and tree nutrition” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). This provides a clear understanding of the topic at hand, as well as a clear hypothesis about improving this issue. The primary statement includes all the information required to understand the subject matter scientifically, and is a credible introduction as its status as a hypothesis is clear. The secondary article simply states, “Some trees growing in nutrient-poor forest soil may get what they need by cultivating specific root microbes to create compounds they require” (Science Daily 2010). This statement is much more general than the primary. It suggests the connection between tree and microbes, but in doing so it does not include any detail as to why or how. Why did we initially study these trees? How do microbes “create compounds”? The secondary acts more towards attracting a public audience to the article.
Claims made in primary and secondary articles differ in efficiency and organization. One secondary claim states that “mineral weathering is especially important in acidic forest soils where tree growth can be limited by access to...nutrients” (Science Daily 2010). This is quite a broad assertion. In comparison, the primary article states “The mobilization of nutrients via the biotic and abiotic weathering of soil minerals is crucial to satisfying plant nutritional needs, especially in acidic forest soils, which are mainly nonfertilized and nutrient poor” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). The primary article more clearly specifies that acidic forest soils are nutrient deprived, and that weathering of soil minerals is the mechanism for compensating this deprivation. The sentence contains a concise point and explanation. The statement made in the first sentence is communicating the same idea, but is not as well-organized. The sentence requires support from the surrounding paragraph to convey the concept at hand.
Furthermore, the level of clarity and relevance of information is different for both sources. In this example, both sources describe bacterium’s ability to release iron. The secondary states, “Mineral-weathering bacteria can release necessary nutrients such as iron from soil minerals” (Science Daily 2010). A loose explanation of the concept is all that is needed for public audience. In contrast, the primary accounts, “The culturable bacterial strains isolated from the S. citrinum ectomycorrhizosphere of oak and beech appeared...efficient in acidifying and releasing iron from biotite” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). This statement accounts for only what is observed in this study. Additionally, if an effect is not presently observed, the report includes some explanation supporting an assumption and/or sources leading to where the information was obtained. This is necessary for scientific purposes to sustain clarity of research. Use of words such as “can” or “may”, seen in the secondary literature, simply do not work for this purpose. I could tell you anything “can” happen, but this is not a substantial means of communication in the scientific field.
Additionally, the level of understanding gained about the issue differs entirely from primary source to secondary. While the secondary source does a good job of fulfilling its purpose, that is
to say, informing the general public about the topic, it does not include information which is admittedly basic to the primary. For instance, the secondary article did not inform the public about how interactions between trees and microbes occur. Described in the primary, “By way of their root exudates, plants alter the structure and activity of microbial communities and selectively favor certain ones that are potentially beneficial to them...recent studies have revealed that the oak-Scleroderma citrinum ectomycorrhizal symbiosis selects bacterial communities that are more efficient in mineral weathering than those of surrounding soil, suggesting that the mycorrhizal symbiosis has an indirect effect on plant nutrition through its selective pressure on functional diversity of the mycorrhizosphere bacterial communities” (C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett 2010). The secondary also did not describe some methods used to reach the conclusion, which included measuring acidity and iron levels first in the surrounding soil and then in the rhizosphere of the tree roots. This missing information was not included in the secondary source because much of the audience do not have the capacity to understand it. Although the complexity of the issue is apparent to the author, they are limited in terms of the depth they are able to pursue because of their audience.In conclusion, it is obvious that the secondary source is much more general than the primary. This is because of the purpose both have been written for. Primary reports are geared towards informing the scientific community about research findings, whereas secondary works are written to inform a public audience about the issue. Although the secondary seems to be less substantial on the whole, it did a good job of fulfilling its purpose, and did not include any falsified information, which is apparent in many secondary sources found today.
References:
1. C. Calvaruso, M.-P. Turpault, E. Leclerc, J. Ranger, J. Garbaye, S. Uroz, P. Frey-Klett. Influence of Forest Trees on the Distribution of Mineral Weathering-Associated Bacterial Communities of the Scleroderma citrinum Mycorrhizosphere. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010.
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/76/14/4780
2. Some Trees ‘Farm’ Bacteria to Help Supply Nutrients. Science Daily, July 30 2010.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729172332.htm
Fig. 2:
Fig. 2: Distribution of the total bacterial (large circles) and Burkholderia genus (small circles) isolates based on their compartment of origin (bulk soil [PN isolates] and ectomycorrhizosphere [PML isolates]) and their efficacy to release iron (Fe, in mg liter–1) from the biotite for the three different tree species. White, Fe 0.1 mg liter–1; light gray, Fe 0.1 mg liter–1 and <>
No comments:
Post a Comment