• Internal Code :
  • Subject Code : SCIE4403
  • University : University of Western Australia
  • Subject Name : SCIE4403 The Conduct, Ethics and Communication of Science

Summary

This is an investigated experiment that aimed to test “the response of four species of macropodid to humans at a wildlife sanctuary”. The main outcome of this study is that all the macropodids positively responded to the human beings with a reduced maintenance activity. The main issue identified in this study is with the impact on wildlife that the humans have and the impact of tourism on the wildlife. This study has successfully completed its experimentation to reach to the conclusion and the findings that suggests that appropriate techniques must be implemented to minimize the negative impact of tourism on the wildlife. The behavior responses of the macropodids were recorded to analyse the impact of tourism on the wildlife. The summary is weak and does not actually describe the whole points of purpose. This is about observing and determining the behavior of macropodid species upon human tourism when they face humans. This is an important study that identifies the factors that influences the magnitude of responses that are measured in the terms of changes in activity and flight distances.

Title

The main content of the article is on the impact of tourism on wildlife especially on the macropodid species and the analysis of their behavior responses when human tourism takes place. The title “terrifying tourists and wary wallabies: responses of macropodid species to the presence of humans” is a weak and complicated title (King, Higginbottom & Bauer, 2005). It creates a confusion to the reader as it does not talk about the impact of tourism on wildlife. The alternate title is “Impact of tourism on wildlife: analysis of macropodid behavioral response to the humans”.

Abstract

The abstract part of this study is weak because it does not describe background and the method of study. An ideal abstract should have introduction (background), aim, method, discussion and conclusion. The aim is clearly mentioned along with the findings but there is no mention of background, method and conclusion. Thus, it is recommended that this abstract must have a detailed background so that the reader can start with it before coming to the aim of study. this abstract has direct mention of the behavioral responses of the macropodid and there is lack of information and precision.

Introduction

The introduction section is comparatively better written and comprises of the essential information as per the study. It starts with general information on the relationship between humans and animals. The information on wildlife tourism is also there and for animal welfare there is a need to minimize the impact of tourism. The weak point of introduction is that it has general information and very less information on tourism and the way it is done. It is recommended that the introduction section must be of high quality and well- organized. The introduction section clearly specifies the aim of study in the form of three aims and states that the last aim used guided tour groups and the first two aims were done by a single researcher.

The three hypothesis that reflects the aim of study are:

“H0: Macropodids did not change the time they spent in different activities in response to approaches by humans.

H1: Macropodids changed the time they spent in different activities in response to approaches by humans

H2: What are the factors that influence the magnitude of responses?

H3: To test whether macropodids were displaced to less suitable feeding areas for a significant time in response to the presence of human.”

Methods

The method section starts with the study area that describes the wildlife of Australia and the area that were taken under the study. This study was conducted between November 2002 and April 2003. The study area is mentioned in detail and the study species are also clearly mentioned. The main issue identified in this study is that methodology section does not describe the method chosen for this study and there is no rationale for any specific method. The way research was performed is given but there is no clear methodology. The main issue in research methodology is weak and the statistical analysis that is done specifies that square root racism transformation was used. The recommendation for methodology section is that this section must always start with the research design and clear mention of the type of methodology section (Abu- Zaid, 2020).

The data collected should be presented well so that the readers can know the format in which this data was collected. The behavioral responses of these four species of macropodid must be mentioned in data collection section or in data analysis section. The experimental tour is mentioned in detail and the data collection method is also mentioned in detail. This is the strength of this study but this is not well- organized. The structure is weak and this creates a complication because the experimental tours are mentioned at the last and the observations of behavior of wildlife were made first. This has created a lot of complication because of the unorganized information.

Results

The results section clearly states the finding of the study that all three macropodid species were found to be spending decreased time in maintenance activities like interacting with conspecific, resting and grooming. This observation was noted when a researcher approached them as compared to when the researchers did not approach them.

The findings as per the species states that:

Bridled Nailtail Wallabies (chai square= 10. 805)

Red- necked Wallabies (chai square= 9. 951)

Swamp Wallabies (Chai square= 13. 184)

The multiple approaches were applied like car approach, on- or off- track approach and with the distance at closest approach and the animals were approached using these. The findings states that that the proportion of time spent in different activities by the animals had no significant difference between different approaches.

When the researcher approached the macropodids in a vehicle then the different results were produced as compared to when they were approached on foot.

Bridled Nailtail Wallabies (chai square= 15. 460)

Red- necked Wallabies (chai square= 13. 576)

Grey Kangaroos (Chai square=11. 175)

Swamp Wallabies was recorded to have same trend and the flight distance was reported to show no difference when recorded through on- track approach and off- track approach for all of the species.

The graph of results can be represented using X- axis and Y- axis. The X- axis represents treatment that is the approaches “on- track approach, off- track approach, car approach and no approach” whereas Y- axis represents percentage of time spent by each of the species. All three species are represented by different indicators. The bar graph type is best type of graph that can present this information of results. The Y- axis indicates “time spent in maintenance activities like feeding, resting and grooming”. The second graph is flight distances of Bridled Nailtail and Swamp Wallabies and the flight distances of Eastern Greys and Red- necked. The third graph is percent of macropodids that are found in grasslands and treatment that is “pre- control, tour day control, no tour day control, post control, pre- tour, tour day, tour, no tour day, tour and post, tour”.

The results section clearly states that the macropodids greater flight distances were recorded when they were approached by the researchers on foot as compared to the car and these results are comparable.

The results section is strong and is the strength of this study. The minimal of improvement is required in this section that is in the organisation (Elessi et al., 2019). The detailed results and findings of three species are given and for the fourth species that is Swarm Wallabies was not given clearly. This creates a possibility of weakness of this study but otherwise the results section along with discussion and implication of the findings are very strong as they have clear and well- organised sections of information.

Discussion

The discussion section is strong enough to provide relevant information based on the results. It clearly discusses the results and provides contrasts for all the species. It also presents various points that makes the study more relevant like “the sanctuary macropodids may not have been exposed to humans on a track frequently enough to learn that they are not a danger, or they may not habituate well to humans”. The only recommendation for this section is that it needs to be more organized because it has a lot of information that needs to be organized so that it makes meaning (Waddington et al., 2017).

Conclusion

The conclusion drawn is that all the macropodid species show behavioral response when approached by the researchers through different approaches like on- trach approach, off- track approach and car approach. The maintenance activities like resting, feeding and interacting with conspecifics were noted for these macropodid species that helped in finding the results. The proportion of macropodids that were found on grasslands showed no significant difference. Overall, this study has various weakness and the recommendations for various improvements are given so that the implacability can be improved.

References

Abu-Zaid, A. (2020). Training in critical appraisal skills. The Lancet, 395(10229), e58.

Elessi, K., Albarqouni, L., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2019). Promoting critical appraisal skills. The Lancet, 393(10191), 2589-2590.

King, N. G., Higginbottom, K. B., & Bauer, J. J. (2005). Terrifying tourists and wary wallabies: responses of macropodid species to the presence of humans. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11(1), 64-72.

Waddington, H., Aloe, A. M., Becker, B. J., Djimeu, E. W., Hombrados, J. G., Tugwell, P., ... & Reeves, B. (2017). Quasi-experimental study designs series—paper 6: risk of bias assessment. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 89, 43-52.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Science Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

"

5 Stars to their Experts for my Assignment Assistance.

There experts have good understanding and knowledge of university guidelines. So, its better if you take their Assistance rather than doing the assignments on your own.

What you will benefit from their service -

I saved my Time (which I utilized for my exam studies) & Money, and my grades were HD (better than my last assignments done by me)

What you will lose using this service -

Absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, i had only 36 hours to complete my assignment when I realized that it's better to focus on exams and pass this to some experts, and then I came across this website.

Kudos Guys!

Jacob

"

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Get 500 Words FREE
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?