article httpwwwcellcomcurrentbiologyabstractS09609822150105

article : http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01054-4

summary of the article: The primary purpose of the article is to examine the effects of the presence of caffeine in plant nectar on the pollination habits of bees. Couvillon et al argue that the mutualistic pollinator-plant relationship is subject to manipulation by either side, and that the presence of caffeine in nectar may be a mechanism by which plants exert their influence on this relationship.
The data that support the primary purpose include increased foraging frequency, 23.5 with caffeine versus 18.5 with the sucrose control (Couvillon et al, 2015), and increased dance propensity, with 88% performing dances with caffeine and 67% with the control (Couvillon et al, 2015). In addition, site specificity of feeding was positively impacted, with 58% of bees exhibiting this behavior as compared to 26% in the control (Couvillon et al, 2015).
The major implications of this article are that chemicals present in plants can significantly impact their reproductive fitness. This information could be important when examining how best to preserve species that are endangered, as knowing the effect of these chemicals and their impact on pollinator behavior could influence their likelihood of survival.
Additional research could be performed with more bees, possibly different species, and also with a greater time-span, as information is not given about the bees’ peak activity times. All would offer greater consistency and reliability to the findings.

After reading the summary please do a peer review answering the following questions in summary form.
How well did the summary correctly identified the primary purpose driving the article?

How well did the summary correctly utilize data from the article in support of the primary purpose?

How well did the summary correctly identify the major implications of the the article?

How well did the summary correctly identify important questions for future research?

How well was the summary written? Did the format and word count of the summary meet the requirements? Were the grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and conciseness of writing senior-level work?

Solution

1. The primary purpose of the article is to find a correlation between the effects of the presence of caffeine in plant nectar on the pollination habits of bees. The argument put forth by Couvillon et al that the mutualistic pollinator-plant relationship is subject to manipulation by either side and that the presence of caffeine in nectar may be a mechanism by which plants exert their influence on this relationship augurs well in terms of identifying the primary purpose driving the article.

2. Some changes in parameters involved increased foraging frequency, 23.5 with caffeine versus 18.5 with the sucrose control; increased dance propensity, with 88% performing dances with caffeine and 67% with the control, and site specificity of feeding was positively impacted, with 58% of bees exhibiting this behavior as compared to 26% in the control. All these show that the data were well utilized in support of the primary purpose.

3. The major implications have been well identified as the chemicals present in plants have a bearing on the reproductive fitness, which can be helpful in preserving species that are endangered.

4. It could be clearly comprehended that there is a scope of additional research with more bees, different species, and with a greater time span. Thus, this summary identifies important questions of future research.

5. It was a well writen, and gramatically correct. Just one thing is that three or more sentences form a paragraph which was missing here.