Research question embedded in a specific ecological context with clear independent variable definition
Materials and methodology described in numbered steps enabling reproducibility
Demonstrates ethical and ecological awareness in field methodology
Hypothesis wording is confusing and direction is misstated once
Background section contains some redundancy on invasive species dispersal
Controlled-variables list omits factors like soil moisture and canopy cover
Data tables and graphs are clearly and precisely presented with consistent units and labeled error bars
Correct use of Shapiro–Wilk tests and an unpooled t-test, with sample calculations and accurate p-value interpretation
Quantification of measurement and instrumental uncertainties is incomplete
Notation and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., table labels, legend for graph) reduce clarity
Some statistical inferences (error-bar overlap) and formula details (denominator in SD) require correction
Conclusion directly addresses the research question and is fully supported by the statistical analysis
Makes relevant comparisons to published ecological literature on invasive species impacts
Misstates the direction of the effect once, requiring wording revision
Comparisons to the scientific context remain qualitative rather than critically integrated
Identifies specific methodological weaknesses (e.g., reliance on species richness, potential misidentification)
Proposes realistic improvements (larger sample size, alternative disturbance regimes) linked to noted limitations
Does not quantify or explain the relative impact of each weakness
Improvement suggestions lack detailed explanation of how they would mitigate the limitations
