User talk:Leahpritchett/sandbox

Peer Review of Article Draft
I think this is an interesting subject because I wouldn't have thought that anything would eat sponges.

Overall, I think everything you've discussed is a good addition to the article. I find it really interesting that something seeming as simple as a sponge can have defence mechanisms in place that are so complex.

Content wise it was good, but I do have some suggestions about formatting and grammar, as well as a couple things that might help add to what you already have. It may seem like a lot but most of what I have here are sentences copied from what you’ve written, and I have bolded what I’ve changed to make it clearer.

The sentence you added to the opening paragraph is currently "As a result of their diet, spongivore animals like the hawksbill turtle sharp, narrow bird-like beak that allows them to reach within crevices on the reef to obtain sponges." I think it would make more sense to word it as "... spongivore animals, like the hawksbill turtle, have developed sharp, narrow bird-like beaks that allow them ..." I also think there should be a citation here.

I understand what you mean about colour choice in the spongivore offence section, but it could be worded differently to be clearer. I would word it something like "Spongivores can make choices based on colour from previous experience. They sample small amounts of different coloured sponges, and only continue to eat the ones that don’t harm them." Also, this behaviour reminded me of rodent feeding behaviour so maybe you could compare this to them.

A picture of a hawksbill turtle or one of the other spongivores would be a great addition to the examples section.

I think "Spongivores have adopted to be able to handle the secondary metabolites that sponges have" would be better worded like "Spongivores have adapted the ability to handle the secondary metabolites of sponges." It might also help with understanding if you define what a secondary metabolite is.

The whole section "Spongivore offence" only has one reference so it would be a good idea to find other sources that support the information in it.

The opening bit under "sponge defence" is kind of defining it twice in slightly different words. You can cut out one of those sentences.

"If a sponge contains spicules along with organic compounds, the likelihood of those sponges being consumed by spongivores decreases"

It might be helpful to define "aposematism".

"Spongivores have learned four things about sponge’s aposematism and they are as follows:"

"Bio erosion that occurs in the production of reef sediments and the structural component of coral is partly produced by sponges, where solid carbonate is processed into smaller fragments and fine sediments."

"The coral reefs that contain higher amounts of sponges have better survival rates than reefs with fewer sponges. Sponges can act as a stabilizer during storms as they help keep the reefs intact when presented with strong currents."

"Before this dissolved organic matter is able to be used by other reef organisms it must undergo a series of microbial transformations. Sponges are able to cycle the nitrogen back into the water column so it can be used by other organisms, especially the cyanobacteria. The cyanobacteria can then fix the atmospheric nitrogen and then the sponges can use it. Therefore, if there is a high amount of spongivores present in an environment, it can impact more than just sponges."

You could add more sources for this section that also support this information.

For the "impacts" section, I think it could be broken down from one large paragraph into smaller ones that describe each of the things you mention, like bio erosion, coral reefs, nitrogen, and habitats.

I hope this helps as you continue editing your article!

Sarahtorraville (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey! i thought that your article is very interesting and just had a few comments. There is some grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the article. For example near the end of the paragraph, under the impacts section there is the sentence "Then cyanobacteria then can fix the atmospheric nitrogen and then the sponges can use it" which needs to be restructured as it doesnt make sense and involved "then" three times in the same sentence.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to give more back-round on "aposematism". More info would help the paragraph flow better as people know what it is your talking about then.

"Spongivores have adapted to be able to handle the secondary metabolites that sponges have. Therefore, spongivores are able to consume a variety of sponges without getting harmed." giving an example of this adaptation i think would be good.

i think it would be good to move the specific info related to the hawksbill turtle out of the intro paragraph to where you talk about it a little bit more in the second paragraph. I gave an example of how this could be done below: "A spongivore is an animal anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating the phylum Porifera, commonly called sea sponges, for the main component of its diet. As a result of their diet, spongivore animals like the hawksbill turtle have evolved special adaptations to eat the sponges. "

Examples "The hawksbill turtle is one of the few animals known to feed primarily on sponges. It is the only known spongivorous reptile. The hawksbill turtle’s sharp, narrow bird-like beak allows them to reach within crevices on the reef to obtain sponges. Sponges of various select species constitute up to 95% of the Caribbean hawksbill turtles diet. "

the only other thing i can say is that a few more references would be good to support the points of your article. most of the paragraphs only have one reference such as under Spongivore offense and Impacts. so finding more references to back up the same information would really help to validate your points. other then that great job, and i really enjoyed it!

Slt724 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)