Assessment procedure and scoring criteria
Name of Experiment
Age of each different experiment on the site. Dates of closure of old experiments.
Address of institution responsible.
Land ownership and management
e.g. Freehold, leasehold. Length of lease. Name of owners and managers, if different.
Any current or short term vulnerabilities.
Include grid ref, soil and vegetation types, elevation, mean annual rainfall, mean
Summary of historical and current research focus. Brief overview of results.
Relevance within current policy framework
Importance for land management or landscape restoration and conservation.
Potential future work
Randomized block design. Size of area, size of plots and sub-plots etc. Hierarchy of
e.g Grazing regime (spring / winter), stocking levels, nutrient, burning regimes.
Climate treatments (temperature, rainfall manipulations and duration)
Baseline data collected and periodicity, ECN network data available, insect surveys,
E.g. accessibility / availability for schools and higher education establishments for
visits, field courses and projects. Data or educational resources available (print /
E.g. Facilities for information transfer to general public are readily available. Proximity
to existing information centre, e.g. NT property. Potential for “video/webcam” links
to the site, so that “virtual” visits by public can be made from remote information
Including any funding or infrastructural issues; partnership or projects which ECT
may assist with.
Please attached a bibliography or links to an online bibliography, if available
Please append a photo of the experiment or experimental site.
Double click on the excel spreadsheet below to complete the self-assessment.
Criteria are detailed following the table.
All of the sites in our 2008 survey were scored against the following criteria:
Uniqueness/ Statistical Security Plot size Plant soil Longevity: Expansion Data Continuity Drivers
novelty: design of appropriate & met potential availability of
tenure to habitat, data eg spare treatment
of site driver & as including plots
All of the above criteria were given a maximum score of 3
Sample archive cooperation / availability
The above were given a maximum score of 2
The following principles/guidelines were used in scoring each criterion.
Not all existing LTEs are totally novel therefore the following was applied. Any LTE
that has repeated the same experimental manipulations of another older ongoing
LTE in the same habitat, but added one or more extra drivers to examine possible
interactions scores 3.
Any LTE that has repeated the same experimental manipulations of another older
ongoing LTE, but on a different habitat type or in a different environment scores 2.
Any LTE that simply repeated the same experimental manipulations of another older
ongoing LTE on the same habitat type scores 1.
The following scoring system was applied to all LTEs
Nos of randomised replicates
Total number of 4+ 3 2 No reps
≥ 16 3 3 2 0
11 - 15 3 3 2 0
6 - 10 3 2 1 0
≤5 3 2 0 0
Security of tenure:
High security e.g. NT land = 3,
NNR, Research Institute or University owned land = 2,
private freehold land with 25 year or more lease = 1,
land under short-term lease < 25 years = 0
Plot size appropriate to habitat, to manipulated driver & as future platform:
Plot sizes of a few square metres were generally considered to be weak in relation
to potential for future subdivision and, depending on knowledge experience of
drivers/habitats being manipulated, received a score of 1 – 2.
Plant, soil & met data including baseline data:
The general assumption was that most data on all three should be available for
many/most years and thus would receive a score of 3.
If one of the three had not been recorded at all = 2.
If more than one missing and/or incomplete = 1, none = 0
0 to 6 years scores 1,
7 to 14 years scores 2,
15 or more years scores 3
Two or more "spare" control plots per replicate block = 3.
Plot size sufficiently large to split and still be appropriate for habitat and/or driver =
Area of habitat around plots managed in the same way as the control and sufficiently
large to contain new treatment plots + new control = 1.
No expansion potential = 0.
No restrictions to data availability = 3.
Accessibility of some data restricted in the short-term (< 5 yrs), and/or gaps in data
(i.e. lack of continuity if expt suspended) = 2.
Accessibility of some data restricted (for foreseeable future) and/or if expt set up by
someone who has retired and the data archive is not 100% available to successor =
No data available = 0
Continuity of treatment:
Unbroken record of treatment application = 3.
A break in continuity of 1-2 years = 2.
A break in continuity of > 2 years and/or more than one break in continuity of 1-2
years = 1.
Scoring based on the number of ecological drivers being manipulated; 1 for 1, 2 for 2
and 3 for 3 or more.
Soil, water, plant/animal samples from baseline and subsequent years archived in
conditions that ensure stability = 2,
some samples missing from archive = 1,
no archived material =0
Cooperation / availability:
High = 2,
some restrictions = 1,
very limited = 0