Download Biological Responses to Climate Change: Reading assignments

Biological Responses to Climate Change: Term Paper
Papers should be no more than 4 single-spaced pages, including references. There is a sample grant
proposal posted on the course website (same folder as this document: Resources; Assignments; Grant
Proposal final paper).
Identify a present question or controversy regarding the biological responses to climate change. Design
an experiment to test an important aspect of that controversy. Focus on contextualizing the specific
research topic within the larger field of climate change biology, clear articulation of the research
questions, and development of appropriate methodology to test your hypotheses.
This assignment will be in the form of a grant proposal. (Many students applying to graduate school
submit grants of this sort to the National Science Foundation to fund their graduate research.) The goal of
the assignment is to identify a research question that can be addressed with experimental data, state the
hypotheses to be tested, describe the experiments that will test the hypotheses, state the predicted results,
and interpret those results in terms of the hypotheses.
Introduction: The Introduction should provide background information on the research question and
place the question in a broader context within the field of climate change biology. First identify a
controversial topic within the broad field, explain why the topic is controversial, and why it is important
for understanding a general process involved in responses to climate change. Second, explain how your
particular question and research system addresses this larger topic. In what sense does you’re your
research system present an example of the more general question you are pursuing? Third, state the
particular hypotheses you are testing. Fourth, state the specific goals of your experiment. It is useful to
list these goals as your main “Objectives” or questions that you hope to answer.
Project description: The Project Description describes the experiments you will conduct in order to test
your hypotheses. First, give some background on the research system: what organism will you study;
what is its ecology; how is its ecology or evolutionary history pertinent to the hypothesis you are testing?
Second, outline the experiment(s) you will conduct. State the hypothesis; describe the treatments you will
impose, if any, and indicate what controls you will use; describe the measurements you will make. Third,
describe your analysis: state specifically which treatments you will compare or what effects you will test
for. Fourth, present your predicted outcomes, and how particular results would support or refute your
hypothesis. Include at least one graphical representation of a predicted outcome. It is very useful to
structure this section according to the specific goals you presented in the Introduction.
Summary: The Summary should be one paragraph. It should restate your basic goals and hypotheses
and summarize how your data will distinguish between these hypotheses. It should conclude by stating
how your specific data will resolve a more general issue.
Format:
Literature cited should be in the following format:
Use peer-reviewed literature, and avoid un-reviewed information on the internet.
In the text, references should be cited as: (First author last name and second author last name year)
For more than two authors, references should be cited as: (First author last name et al. year)
In the bibliography (alphabetized at the end of the paper), the format should be:
Author last name, initials. Year. Title of article. Journal vol:page-page.
Grading:
Grading will be based on overall quality and on the following specific criteria:
1. Quality and motivation of the broad and specific hypotheses
a. Hypotheses are clear in their causality
b. Clear and creative motivation of the broad topic and the specific sub-hypothesis
c. Clear relationship between the broad topic and the specific hypotheses
2. Appropriateness and creativity of the experimental approach
a. Experiments effectively address each sub-hypothesis.
b. Experiments are designed appropriately, including having adequate controls,
replication, and randomization.
c. The treatments and response variables are clearly described and appropriate to the
hypothesis being tested.
3. Appropriateness of interpretation of expected results
a. Expected outcomes are clearly articulated in terms of which results would support or
refute each hypothesis.
b. Alternative interpretations are thoroughly considered and addressed, as appropriate.
4. Clarity of writing and presentation of results
a. Clarity of composition of sentences and paragraphs
b. Quality of organization
c. Major conclusions are clear and significant.