Assessment - frog report
Key dates: There are 5 phases to this assessment:
1. Fieldwork (6th March to 15 April 2018): data for group analysis is due by Monday 16 April 10am (see Fieldwork information)
2. Pracs to learn R and analytical methods needed for the assessment.
3. The report is due in Week 9: Wednesday 9th May, midday, for peer review.
4. Comments on peers' reports due in Week 10, Wednesday 16th May, midday.
5. Final report with comments and track changes in response to peer review, due in Week 11, Wednesday 23rd May, midday.
Aims: The aim of this assessment is to develop your skills in analysing data, interpreting the results, understanding how the results affect monitoring design, and communicating your work in the context of the broader literature. Specifically, the aims are:
- to quantify and understand the factors that affect occupancy and detectability of frog species in Melbourne (see pracs);
- to compare the modelling results from Prac 3 (using Geoff Heard's data) with the results from analysing the data collected by the class group during fieldwork.
- to understand and critically evaluate the implications of your results for effective monitoring and management of the species
- to learn about and participate in peer-review, a critical part and process of science.
Learning outcomes:
- Synthesise major concepts in landscape ecology
- Find relevant information on landscape structure, function and change, apply this framework to observed landscapes and effectively communicate findings.
- Evaluate primary scientific literature.
- This project integrates all aspects of studying landscapes and communicating results.
- Direct practical skills used for analysing landscapes.
- Written communication skills to effect change.
- Evaluating information (primary literature and field results) requiring critical, analytical thinking and judgement.
- Tackling the authentic problems in analysis and interpretation arising from data collected in the field.
- Using international literature, students will synthesise communications output in a diverse team setting.
Background: Monitoring forms a large part of many ecologists' jobs. There are a range of reasons for monitoring, including to establish if a species is present (e.g. for impact assessments), to understand factors that drive a species' distribution or occupancy, and to detect trends in distribution or occupancy. Therefore understanding good monitoring design is critical. This assessment focuses on one aspect that affects the reliability monitoring: detectability - the probability of detecting a species given it actually is present at a site. The assessment will also give you the tools to analyse and quantify both detectability and occupancy, and the factors (variables) that affect them.
ANALYSIS & QUESTIONS TO GUIDE YOUR ANALYSES
1. In Prac 3, select one of the three species (Southern Brown Tree Frog, Common Froglet or Spotted Marsh Frog), and analyse the provided data for occupancy and detectability, as per the prac instructions (using the data from Geoff Heard).
2. In Prac 4, select a species from the group data set to analyse (hopefully the same species, but the species that can be analysed will depend on the quality of the data collected ; if you want to ensure you have the same species for both datasets, you can analyse another of the 3 species from Prac 3 if you like, as you are re-applying code from pracs 2 and 3, so it should be relatively straightforward).
3. In addition to pracs 3 and 4, you can get support for undertaking and interpreting these analyses during Prac 5 (week 8). The report is due in week 9.
4. Compare the results of your analyses. Are the results similar in terms of what affects occupancy and detectability, or different? How and why? If the group-collected data shows nothing much, why would that be? What are the implications of any differences or similarities in the results for model transferability to a different area (Geoff Heard's data is from northern Melbourne, while our data come from different areas), or a different species? Remember you also have the Growling Grass Frog results from Prac 2 as well, as another point of comparison.
5. How do your results compare with the published findings on frogs, for example by Heard, Parris, Canessa and others (see reading list), and other species?
6. What are the implications of your results for monitoring this species (if the group-collected data don't show much, you may want to just focus on the prac3 data)? What are the implications for management or construction of wetlands for species conservation?
7. There are loads of other questions to ask yourself - further explore what the data analyses reveal, and where your specific interests list.
REPORT STRUCTURE -
Total length between 1500-2000 words - not including title, references, tables or figure captions; submit as a Word document. Each numbered point refers to a separate paragraph (except graphs of results).
Title (ideally no more than 10 words)
The title should be informative, appropriate and succinct, clearly relating to the main topic of the report (have a look at papers you have read for clues).
Introduction (less than 450 words)
1. (100 words) The big problem necessitating this study.
2. (150 words) what is known about the subject through review of the literature, and gaps in knowledge.
3. (100 words) How the general problems in the paragraph 1 and 2 are relevant to your study species in greater Melbourne.
4. (100 words) The specific aims/questions of this study (up to 3).
Methods (500 words, potentially plus tables and map of study area)
5. (100 words) Introduction to the species.
6. (100 words) Summary of frog data from Geoff Heard: in your own words.
7. (150 words) Field survey methods: in your own words.
8. (150 words) Describe your analysis, which should be an adaptation of Pracs 2, 3 and 4. Your analysis for this project will be completed during Prac 4. An additional table or appendix may be used if many different models need to be documented. Again, use your own words, don't copy and paste from the pracs.
Results (200 words plus figures)
9. Graph significant relationships and present plots as numbered figures. Present only those figures related to your aims and that you will discuss as either the first, second or third most important finding. Given the word limits, you won't be able to include everything - only the most important and interesting findings. Each graph should have a caption that enables readers to fully understand the graph without referring to the text. Captions must not exceed 30 words each. Extra marks for going beyond what was taught in the pracs (e.g., running additional models or making different plots), and for inference beyond what you've been directly told in your pracs.
10. (200 words - you can break this paragraph up) Write very brief text to describe the key patterns in each plot, referring to the appropriate figure. The idea is to draw the reader's attention to the most important results in each graph.
Discussion (600 words)
11. (75 words) Overview paragraph: key findings, and therefore, what is the likely importance of your discovery (a taster sentence highlighting the main point of the discussion to come).
12. (150 words) Discuss the most important finding in the context of the international literature. You could: reiterate discovery, explain what it means and how that discovery sheds light on, or is informed by, the international literature about factors influencing frog monitoring.
13. (150 words) Discuss the second most important finding in the context of the international literature.
14. (150 words) Discuss the third most important finding in the context of the international literature (if there is no third most important finding that warrants discussion, you may add a paragraph after paragraph 12 to expand on the most-important finding.)
15. (75 words) Conclusion. References can be used in the conclusions, but may not always be needed.
References (not included in word count; we recommend using Endnote to produce your bibliography - the library can help you with this).
Attachment:- Assignment Files.rar