She omits two key elements from the article that are present in the study. The first one being that Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, and Russel had also done the same experiments using the same methods at another site in the opposite hemisphere. They conducted their study on Vulcano Island, Italy in the Mediterranean sea as well as White Island. The information gathered in the study from Vulcano Island did not reflect the same results as the information from White Island, which conflicts Sullivan’s claims. The predicted increases in fish densities due to both other CO2 effects and habitat changes were significantly higher on White Island than on Vulcano Island (Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, Russel, 2015). Not only did Sullivan omit the information from Vulcano island, she also failed to mention the dependency the information has on several different variables that the author expressed in the study. The authors said, “Our study suggests at least three mechanisms that can mitigate the negative effects of ocean acidification, although for other species with different resource requirements elevated CO2 can create negative effects, depending on which habitat and resource types are being gained and lost” (Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, Russel, 2015). This shows that the information they collected from the experiments they conducted does not fully support a concrete conclusion of the affects high levels of CO2 have on immature fish. Knowing the dependency on habitat and resource changes the provided information in the article has, as well as the fact that there was conflicting information coming from a site that was never mentioned provides a bigger picture that could change the readers view and somewhat contradict the claims made by
She omits two key elements from the article that are present in the study. The first one being that Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, and Russel had also done the same experiments using the same methods at another site in the opposite hemisphere. They conducted their study on Vulcano Island, Italy in the Mediterranean sea as well as White Island. The information gathered in the study from Vulcano Island did not reflect the same results as the information from White Island, which conflicts Sullivan’s claims. The predicted increases in fish densities due to both other CO2 effects and habitat changes were significantly higher on White Island than on Vulcano Island (Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, Russel, 2015). Not only did Sullivan omit the information from Vulcano island, she also failed to mention the dependency the information has on several different variables that the author expressed in the study. The authors said, “Our study suggests at least three mechanisms that can mitigate the negative effects of ocean acidification, although for other species with different resource requirements elevated CO2 can create negative effects, depending on which habitat and resource types are being gained and lost” (Connel, Gillanders, Nagelkerken, Russel, 2015). This shows that the information they collected from the experiments they conducted does not fully support a concrete conclusion of the affects high levels of CO2 have on immature fish. Knowing the dependency on habitat and resource changes the provided information in the article has, as well as the fact that there was conflicting information coming from a site that was never mentioned provides a bigger picture that could change the readers view and somewhat contradict the claims made by