Ecological Field Assessment

Proof required

Submit your ecological assessment question, your sampling protocol (survey method, sampling effort, target taxa, environmental variables to record), and your study site description (coordinates, habitat type, access date) or your open dataset selection with source URL, download date, and geographic and temporal scope.

What gets checked

• Ecological question is specific enough to produce an answerable result — 'what is the plant species richness in 10 quadrats on the north slope' is answerable; 'how biodiverse is the park' is not
• Sampling protocol specifies the survey method, unit area (quadrat size, transect length), number of replicates, and recording procedure for each target taxon
• Study site description or dataset documentation includes information relevant to interpreting the results — habitat type, management history, season of survey, data collection methodology for open data

Common mistakes

• Designing a protocol that requires specialist equipment not available for M2 — for example, bat detector surveys require specific hardware; design around equipment you actually have
• Selecting an open dataset without checking whether it provides the variables needed for the assessment question

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe how their sampling design minimises detectability bias — different species have different detection probabilities; a good protocol acknowledges this.
• Ask why they chose this particular site or dataset for their question — confirms the selection was deliberate and the site is appropriate for the question being asked.
• Ask how they will distinguish a genuine absence from a missed detection — the difference between a species not present and a species present but not recorded is fundamental to ecological survey design.

Proof required

Submit your field data sheets (photos of handwritten sheets are acceptable) or data extraction documentation, at least five verified species records with evidence (photographs or data quality filters documented), and the output of your diversity or community analysis (species richness, Shannon diversity, or the relevant metric for your question).

What gets checked

• Species records are verified — field survey records include photograph IDs or reference to a field guide used; open data records include documentation of data quality filtering applied
• Environmental variables are recorded alongside species observations — temperature, canopy cover, substrate type, or other relevant habitat variables
• Analysis output is reported with the sample size — not just 'we found 23 species' but '23 species recorded in 10 quadrats (2m × 2m), survey effort: 3 hours'

Common mistakes

• Not verifying species identifications — recording an unverified 'grass sp.' counts for neither the evidence requirement nor the ecological analysis
• Not recording survey effort alongside the species count — richness without a denominator (area, time, number of samples) cannot be compared or interpreted

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to show their species photographs or data quality filter documentation — species identification evidence is the basis of any ecological data credibility.
• Ask what their total survey effort was and how that affects the interpretation of the species richness — effort-based context is fundamental to ecological surveys.
• Ask how they handled a species that could have been present but was not detected — demonstrates understanding of the difference between absence and non-detection.

Proof required

Submit your complete ecological assessment report (2000–3500 words: introduction with ecological context, methods, results with species list and diversity metrics, discussion interpreting ecological value and condition, management recommendations with specific actions, and conclusion) plus a Q&A record showing specific challenges from the reviewer and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their ecology or conservation background stated.

What gets checked

• Management recommendations are specific and actionable — not 'improve biodiversity' but a specific action (e.g., 'reduce mowing frequency on the north slope to establish tall grassland structure, which our survey indicates is currently absent')
• Discussion interprets the findings in terms of ecological condition — uses the species composition to infer habitat quality, management history, or disturbance status
• Q&A record shows at least two challenges to ecological interpretation or management reasoning and substantive responses

Common mistakes

• Generic management recommendations not grounded in the specific findings — recommendations must flow from what was actually found in the assessment
• A reviewer without ecology or conservation biology experience — the Q&A must challenge ecological interpretation, which requires domain knowledge

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to justify the most specific management recommendation — what in the survey data directly supports that particular action?
• Ask what the ecological significance of the most notable species they recorded is — confirms they engaged with the conservation value of their findings.
• Verify the reviewer has ecology or conservation biology experience — a general environmental professional may not be able to challenge ecological interpretation at appropriate depth.