Study Design (conbio-study-design)
Conservation Biology accepts many methodologies but is demanding about each. The design must
credibly connect the conservation question (conbio-topic-selection) to evidence that supports a
transferable, decision-relevant conclusion. This skill is mode-aware: pick the section that matches
your work and defend it against the strongest alternative explanation.
When to trigger
- Specifying sampling, comparison, or modeling design before fieldwork or analysis
- A reviewer questioned detection, replication, spatial autocorrelation, or causal claims
- Designing an intervention/management evaluation or a synthesis protocol
- Justifying why your design adjudicates the rival account from
conbio-literature-positioning
Field & observational ecology
- Account for detection. Imperfect detection biases counts — use occupancy, distance sampling, or
capture-recapture rather than raw indices when detection varies.
- Replication and scale. Avoid pseudoreplication; define the independent unit; match the spatial
and temporal scale of sampling to the inference. State the sampling frame.
- Spatial structure. Address spatial autocorrelation and spatial bias (sampling effort, access).
Comparative / quasi-experimental (intervention evaluation)
- Use BACI / before-after-control-impact, control-impact, or matched designs to attribute change
to a conservation action rather than to background trend.
- Counterfactual thinking. What would have happened without the protected area / policy / harvest
rule? Matching, difference-in-differences, or synthetic controls where appropriate.
- State confounders (accessibility, prior condition) and how the design or analysis handles them.
Modeling & synthesis
- SDM / niche / population models: justify predictors, address sampling bias and collinearity,
validate out-of-sample; state transferability limits before projecting.
- Systematic review / meta-analysis: follow PRISMA / CEE protocols; preregister where possible;
document search, screening, and effect-size extraction.
Human dimensions / social science
- Match the method (surveys, interviews, choice experiments) to the question; report sampling, ethics,
consent, and how respondent identity and sensitive data are protected.
The adjudication test (journal-specific)
For the single strongest rival explanation, write one sentence: "If the rival were true rather
than my conclusion, the data would look like ___; instead they look like ___." If you cannot, the
design does not yet support a transferable conservation claim.
Anti-patterns
- Raw counts treated as abundance with no detection model
- Pseudoreplication; inference at a scale the sampling cannot support
- "Effect of the intervention" with no counterfactual or control
- SDM/model projected far outside its training range with no transferability caveat
- A design that cannot distinguish your conclusion from the leading alternative
Operating pass for Conservation Biology
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Submission-ready gate: do not give final advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Mode】field-ecology / quasi-experimental / modeling-synthesis / human-dimensions
【Question / estimand】what is being measured or attributed
【Key assumption(s)】detection, scale, counterfactual, transferability — how each is defended
【Rival ruled out】the adjudication sentence
【Robustness/sensitivity】planned checks
【Next】conbio-data-analysis
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Conservation-Biology-Skills/skills/conbio-study-design/SKILL.md
1---2name: conbio-study-design3description: Use when defending the study design of a Conservation Biology manuscript — ecological sampling and inference (detection, spatial structure, pseudoreplication), comparative/observational and quasi-experimental designs (BACI), modeling and synthesis design, and human-dimensions methods. The journal judges each appropriate method on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.4---567# Study Design (conbio-study-design)89*Conservation Biology* accepts many methodologies but is demanding about each. The design must10credibly connect the conservation question (`conbio-topic-selection`) to evidence that supports a11**transferable, decision-relevant** conclusion. This skill is mode-aware: pick the section that matches12your work and defend it against the strongest alternative explanation.1314## When to trigger1516- Specifying sampling, comparison, or modeling design before fieldwork or analysis17- A reviewer questioned detection, replication, spatial autocorrelation, or causal claims18- Designing an intervention/management evaluation or a synthesis protocol19- Justifying why your design adjudicates the rival account from `conbio-literature-positioning`2021## Field & observational ecology22- **Account for detection.** Imperfect detection biases counts — use occupancy, distance sampling, or23 capture-recapture rather than raw indices when detection varies.24- **Replication and scale.** Avoid pseudoreplication; define the independent unit; match the spatial25 and temporal scale of sampling to the inference. State the sampling frame.26- **Spatial structure.** Address spatial autocorrelation and spatial bias (sampling effort, access).2728## Comparative / quasi-experimental (intervention evaluation)29- Use **BACI / before-after-control-impact**, control-impact, or matched designs to attribute change30 to a conservation action rather than to background trend.31- **Counterfactual thinking.** What would have happened without the protected area / policy / harvest32 rule? Matching, difference-in-differences, or synthetic controls where appropriate.33- State confounders (accessibility, prior condition) and how the design or analysis handles them.3435## Modeling & synthesis36- **SDM / niche / population models:** justify predictors, address sampling bias and collinearity,37 validate out-of-sample; state transferability limits before projecting.38- **Systematic review / meta-analysis:** follow **PRISMA / CEE** protocols; preregister where possible;39 document search, screening, and effect-size extraction.4041## Human dimensions / social science42- Match the method (surveys, interviews, choice experiments) to the question; report sampling, ethics,43 consent, and how respondent identity and sensitive data are protected.4445## The adjudication test (journal-specific)4647For the **single strongest rival explanation**, write one sentence: *"If the rival were true rather48than my conclusion, the data would look like ___; instead they look like ___."* If you cannot, the49design does not yet support a transferable conservation claim.5051## Anti-patterns5253- Raw counts treated as abundance with no detection model54- Pseudoreplication; inference at a scale the sampling cannot support55- "Effect of the intervention" with no counterfactual or control56- SDM/model projected far outside its training range with no transferability caveat57- A design that cannot distinguish your conclusion from the leading alternative585960## Operating pass for Conservation Biology6162Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.6364- **Do the pass:** Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.65- **Return a ledger:** give `claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location` rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.66- **Sibling guard:** compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.67- **Submission-ready gate:** do not give final advice until the pack's `resources/official-source-map.md` has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.6869## Output format7071```72【Mode】field-ecology / quasi-experimental / modeling-synthesis / human-dimensions73【Question / estimand】what is being measured or attributed74【Key assumption(s)】detection, scale, counterfactual, transferability — how each is defended75【Rival ruled out】the adjudication sentence76【Robustness/sensitivity】planned checks77【Next】conbio-data-analysis78```7980## Supplementary resources8182- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — occupancy, capture-recapture, SDM, BACI, and synthesis tooling83- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — reviewer expectations and scope8485---8687**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Conservation-Biology-Skills/skills/conbio-study-design/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain