A lay summary of your abstract, no new numbers or results

Input (fictional study). Where: Journal plain-language summary, max 150 words. Field: Urban ecology; readers are non-scientists. Abstract: “Urban green space is thought to support ground-dwelling invertebrates, but the effect of small, isolated lawns and verges is rarely quantified. We sampled ground beetles (Carabidae) with pitfall traps at 24 sites in a mid-sized city between May and August 2024: 12 mown lawns and 12 verges left unmown for the season. Unmown verges held more beetle species per trap than mown lawns (mean 9.1 versus 5.4; mixed-effects model, p < 0.01), and total beetle abundance did not differ between treatments. Community composition differed between treatments, with several open-habitat specialists recorded only on unmown verges. Site-level soil moisture explained part of the variation in species richness, but we could not separate it from mowing regime because treatments were not randomised across soil types. Results suggest that reduced mowing may increase local beetle diversity, but our single-season, single-city design limits generalisation. Longer monitoring across more cities is needed to test whether these gains persist.” Extra facts: none.

Below is the complete, unedited output of one separate Claude run (claude-opus-5-5, medium effort) given exactly the input above with the same brief the service uses. We checked it by script: the summary is 147 words with a 150 limit, and the printed word count matches our own count, every number in it appears in the abstract, and every quoted phrase under “Terms I replaced” is copied word for word from the abstract. Note the run's own caveats under “Claims to double-check”: they show the kind of thing you must confirm.

Read this first

Your abstract clearly gives the design, the main result with figures, the soil-moisture problem and the limits of one season in one city. To stay under 150 words I dropped the statistical detail (mixed-effects model, p < 0.01), the word "mid-sized" for the city, and the aim of testing "whether these gains persist." The biggest gap for a lay reader is that the abstract does not say why beetle variety matters to people or who could use these findings.

Your summary

City green spaces are thought to support small ground-living animals. But researchers rarely measure how much small, isolated lawns and roadside grass strips help. We caught ground beetles in buried cup traps at 24 city sites from May to August 2024. The sites were 12 mown lawns and 12 roadside strips left unmown all season. On average, unmown strips had more beetle species per trap than mown lawns: 9.1 versus 5.4. Total beetle numbers did not differ. But the mix of species differed, and several species of open habitats appeared only on unmown strips. Soil moisture explained some differences in species numbers. We could not separate this from mowing, as mown and unmown sites were not spread randomly across soil types. The results suggest less mowing may increase local beetle variety. This single-season, single-city study limits how far results apply. Longer monitoring in more cities is needed.

(Words: 147)

One-sentence version

In a mid-sized city, roadside strips left unmown held more ground beetle species per trap than mown lawns, suggesting less mowing may increase local beetle variety.

Terms I replaced

• "ground-dwelling invertebrates" -> small ground-living animals
• "pitfall traps" -> buried cup traps
• "verges" -> roadside grass strips
• "species richness" -> species numbers
• "Community composition" -> the mix of species
• "open-habitat specialists" -> species of open habitats
• "total beetle abundance" -> total beetle numbers
• "mixed-effects model, p < 0.01" -> left out (statistical detail)

Blanks to fill

• None in the summary itself.
• Why this matters: the abstract does not say why beetle variety is important (for example, its role in city ecosystems). Consider adding one line if your journal allows.
• Who could use this: the abstract does not name who might act on the findings, such as people who manage city grass. Add this only if your paper supports it.

Claims to double-check

• I described "verges" as roadside grass strips; confirm all 12 verges were beside roads.
• "Species numbers" stands in for species richness per trap; confirm readers won't take it as the total species count per site.
• "Total beetle numbers did not differ" leaves out that this was a statistical test result; confirm the plain wording is fair.
• "Soil moisture explained some differences" simplifies "site-level soil moisture explained part of the variation"; confirm that "some" isn't too strong or too weak.
• "May increase local beetle variety" keeps your hedges "suggest" and "may"; confirm "variety" is an acceptable plain word for diversity here.
• The p-value and the aim of testing whether gains persist were cut for length; confirm the journal doesn't require them.

Before you submit

• Read it aloud to someone outside your field and ask them to explain it back to you.
• Confirm every number (24, 12, 9.1, 5.4, May to August 2024) against the final paper.
• Check the 150-word limit in the journal's submission portal, because portals count words differently.
• Confirm the journal's own plain-language summary rules (tone, first person, statistics).