Discussion

Discussion

(Article 3)
I loved how the discussion section of the article decided to split it into three distinct sections. The first discussion was focused on the predation by the post-recruits of N.lapillus and provided many examples from other forms of literature. The images and figures help reestablish the points from the results sections and also helped us understand more what those figures mean. The next sections also are broken down to predation by recruits of N. lapillus and the other was the patterns of abundance and distribution of mussels and the role of whelk predation. The last section which was discussed gave a sort of a hint of another long term research that could be conducted based of the results of this study.

(Article 2)
The second article's discussion is separated by headlines as well. The language and feel of this article felt more personal and less scientific. They really took the time to discuss what the results of the study meant and how we are going to interpret them for further research. The end of the discussion wasn't really a good ending. Personally I feel like the end of the discussion should have wrapped up all the points made better.

(Article 1)
This articles discussion was packed with a lot of figures and tables. I felt like these should have been represented in the results section. The discussion though did reflect what all the figures and tables meant. The authors discussed other things that have affected the data such as oil spills. This was a good way to explain the numbers from the results sections.


What I have noticed throughout reading all of these discussion sections is that a well balanced discussion is the way to go. The proper balance of figures and discussion is necessary to help iterate the main ideas of the results you have conducted. The language also needs to be relate-able to the reader, knowing who the audience is going to be is important. It is usually the biggest part of the scientific paper. For our Nucella research though I don't anticipate our discussions being this long. We are focusing on only one subject. For me it is the marginal growth so the discussion of marginal growth with references will not be as long as these, but will be the bulk of my scientific paper.