Objective: Students will perform a bioassessment
of the impact on the water quality of Moore Creek by construction at the Boring
Sports Complex on the campus of
In the Introduction, you will discuss previous research indicating impacts of construction on stream water quality and the precedent/logic of using the fish community of a steam as an indicator of water quality. In Methods, you will explain specific methodology used to collect and analyze data. This will not be original methods that you have developed, but rather previously published/accepted methods to conduct the bioassessment. In Results, you will present summaries of data and analyses. In Discussion, you will discuss the implications of the results in the context of the introduction. This will also be where recommendations regarding the construction of the complex should be made.
This paper should be done in full scientific format. These citations should be traced back to primary literature whenever possible. All citations in the text must be done in name and year format as follows: Powers (2003), Powers and Mayden (2003), or Powers et al. (2004). A Literature Cited section will follow Discussion. References must be listed alphabetically in Literature Cited and in the following formats:
Journal articles:
Powers, S. L. 2003. Modification of
Index of Biotic Integrity for Russell Fork of upper
Powers, S. L.
and R. L. Mayden. 2003. Etheostoma
cervus: a new species from the Forked Deer River
System in western
Powers, S. L., R. L. Mayden,
and D. A. Etnier. 2004.
Conservation genetics of the ashy darter, Etheostoma cinereum
(Percidae: subgenus Allohistium),
in the
Books:
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes.
1993. The fishes of
Book chapters:
Templeton, A. R.
1986. Coadaptation
and outbreeding depression, p. 105-116 In: Conservation
biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. M. E. Soule (ed.). Sinauer
Associates,
These references need to be part of the established scientific literature and/or appropriate “gray literature”. Only primary research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books written for use by professional researchers, or procedural documents produced by appropriate governmental agencies are acceptable. These resources will be accessed largely by library searches, online journal resources, and governmental websites/contacts.
Scoring Rubric
Introduction
20 Location of study area clearly identified and thoroughly described, potential impacts on water quality project identified citing previous studies, rationale for bioassessment using the fish community clearly explained, concisely written, free of grammatical errors
15 Location of study area identified, potential impacts on water quality project identified but lacking citations, rationale for bioassessment using the fish community presented, not concise, few grammatical errors
10 Location of study area poorly identified, cursory treatment of potential impacts on water quality, rationale for bioassessment using the fish community wanting, not concise, many grammatical errors
Methods
20 Specific sampling methods described in sufficient detail to provide replication of study, analyses clearly explained, concisely written, free of grammatical errors
15 Specific sampling methods described, analyses identified, not concise, few grammatical errors
10 Specific sampling methods poorly described, analyses not clearly identified, not concise, many grammatical errors
Results
20 Summaries of data presented clearly, trends and/or important findings are illustrated and easily recognized, tables clear and well organized, accurate, no conclusions presented, concisely written, free of grammatical errors
15 Summaries of data presented but not clear, trends and/or important findings not easily recognized, tables present but unclear, not completely accurate, conclusions suggested sparsely, not concise, few grammatical errors
10 Summaries of data lacking, trends and/or important findings lacking, tables present and figures lacking, not completely accurate, conclusions suggested throughout, not concise, many grammatical errors
Discussion
20 Results clearly linked to purpose of study, conclusions clearly supported by results, recommendations consistent with introduction and conclusions, concisely written, free of grammatical errors
15 Results linked to purpose of study, conclusions associated with results but not clearly linked, recommendations not entirely consistent with introduction and conclusions, not concise, few grammatical errors
10 Results not linked to purpose of study, conclusions not associated with results, recommendations not consistent with introduction and conclusions, not concise, many grammatical errors
Literature Cited
20 Citations throughout text for all statements not “common knowledge”, proper format, text and lit. cited consistent
15 Citations sparse throughout text, improper format, text and lit. cited inconsistent
10 Citations lacking in text, improper format, text and lit. cited inconsistent