How to get a good grade on the Term Paper

Research phase:

• When doing research, use the primary literature (do not base your paper entirely on internet information or books - see the assignment sheet). Note that there are a number of online databases that you can use to find information on your species, accessible through the UMD library system. One of my favorites is Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (check the "Ecology" box when searching, use the scientific rather than common name for your species, and in general use the "all words" rather than "exact phrase" option). Once you have done a fair amount of research, you may consider calling/emailing people at the Zoo/universities/Fish and Wildlife service with SPECIFIC questions or reference requests. The FWS has Habitat Conservation Plans and probably PVA reports on some species in the US. You should have at least 10 references that are non-web based, and at least 5 references from scientific journals.

Analysis phase:

• Make sure you run all necessary simulations (see the assignment sheet).
• Use catastrophes carefully - they should be things that happen intermittently and to a broad cross-section of the population. They should not be effects to *individuals* or things that happen *all* the time (male-male aggression, poaching, deforestation). This Vortex parameter is well suited to things like forest fires, floods, disease. Are there catastrophes that could indirectly affect your species by wiping out the food/prey in a given year? Also, if you are unsure of the probabilities or severity for your catastrophes, then do a run without any - this will show you their relative importance.
• Consider these parameters carefully:
• How many populations - Generally you want to consider one isolated population of a species for your term paper, but if you know your population is experiencing significant migration from another population you may want to discuss that, even if you do not incorporate it in your model.
• What is the maximum number of young per litter - Generally this value will be 1 or greater, but if your species reproduces less frequently than once a year, then you will need to talk to the professor or TA to figure out how to deal with this. You may need to assume that X model years = 1 real year for your species. Be aware that an assumption like this may change many other values like maximum age, etc.
• Carrying capacity - are they at or near K? If not then what has lowered their numbers below K? How might you determine what their K is? If it appears that loss of habitat is more important in determining their decline than mortality (as from hunting), then consider that they might be at K already...
• Carrying capacity trend - is their habitat/resource base increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?
• Carrying capacity Standard Deviation - Does the resource base/prey fluctuate significantly from year to year or is it relatively constant? Be careful about what value you pick if you decide to make it vary. You might run at least one simulation where SD=0.
• Harvesting - this could be used to incorporate the effects of poaching, but you might also be justified in using an increased value for [adult] mortality depending upon the situation.
• Supplementation - may be used to simulate stocking of game animals or reintroductions/translocations if this applies to your situation.
• When you look at your results, consider that this is a stochastic model (incorporates random events, so each run has a different possible outcome). When you are only running it 100 times, then random events may make one scenario go extinct a little sooner or later than another. If the trend doesn't make too much sense, then try running with a larger number of repetitions - maybe 500 or 1000. But consider the importance and meaning of individual runs.

Writing phase:

• When writing the report, look at the Instructions to Authors. Write the paper as if you are submitting it to the journal Conservation Biology. If you don't use the correct format, you *will* lose points.
• Do a spell check!!!! And read your paper over once for grammatical errors and redundancy. Grammar and clarity are 10% of the paper. Use the active voice wherever possible. Avoid unnecessary information. A long paper padded with useless information is infinitely worse than a short paper that concisely addresses and summarizes the relevant data. Avoid sentences like:
• "A vegetarian diet is typical of herbivores who digest both the content and plant cells and the cell wall."
• "It is in the order Carnivora, so it would be assumed that the animals are carnivores. The diets of these large animals consist mostly from small to medium animals."
• Make a table of Vortex input values (all of them) and next to each value put a citation for the data or a reason for why you choose this value. Do this early in the semester and the project will be much easier.
• For citations/bibliography see a copy of the journal Conservation Biology. For how to cite web pages see this: http://www.lib.umd.edu/UMCP/UES/citing.html
• In your paper discuss your results IN DETAIL (summarizing the output numbers in a table or attaching an output file as an Appendix is good, but it is not sufficient - you need to summarize and *explain* the results!). You should explain the differences in each simulation you ran in terms of probability of extinction, time to extinction, heterozygosity, and population parameters (intrinsic rate of natural increase (r), net replacement rate (R0), etc.). What do these mean?
• Use your results to decide on your recommendations. Focus on the factors that the simulations indicated to be important. Don't ignore your results even if they didn't come out how you expected. You should not start writing your recommendations until you look over your results.
• If your results indicate no threat of extinction, or indicate that extinction is assured in 10 years no matter what, then consider first whether your parameters are correct. Try changing values that are "guesstimates" and see if they change the outcome. Is this a real result, or is it an error in your model? Consider both possibilities. Try to figure out which is the case. If your species falls into either extreme (very likely to go extinct, or not likely at all), then think about whether anything SHOULD be done (is it worth putting money/effort into this species versus other conservation needs?), or whether anything CAN be done. Is there one parameter in the model that could change this outlook? Could it be changed in real life through management?
• Consider what it might take to solve the social/economic problems *driving* the extinction. For example, for tigers in Siberia, will increased enforcement solve the problem of poaching? Or will there always be more poachers than rangers? Will the rangers become poachers if not paid enough? Is there an alternative you can offer to the poachers/local people?
• Consider the costs/benefits to your recommendations. (E.g., Is there a down side to increased tourism? Is there another way to accomplish the same thing for cheaper or with greater public acceptance?)
• Think, ponder, reflect on your results and the fate of your species... then write the Discussion section.

Common Mistakes People Have Made:

• Did not use appropriate values for Vortex parameters or failed to adequately justify the values. Note that for most species, this will be the hardest part of the term paper.
• Used scenarios for "catastrophes" that weren't really suited to catastrophes.
• Did not look at socioeconomic factors.
• Didn't spall chack.
• Didn't follow format.
• Didn't put in table showing parameter values and citing source or providing justification.