166 The UMAP Journal 30.2 (2009) particular, the judges felt that the Outstanding papers each demonstrated par- ticular strengths in one of the important dimensions discussed in the previot section. No submission was able to dominate every area, but these two teams were clearly superior in different ways China University of Mining and Technology The China University ofMining and Technology submission wasnotable for theimpressive array of modeling techniques utilizedin attacking the problem There were otherpaperswithasimilarlevelofmodeling, but this groupnotonly described the modeling process clearly but connected the models coherently to the problem at hand. As with many of the teams, the principal models used were differentialequations(Volterramodels). The teamalso used the analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP), as well as nonlinear optimization to improve their models and to address the later requirements of the problem. They propose strengthening the"middle strata of the foodweb"by introducing herbivorous species to the polyculture. They also propose a strategy for harvesting various species while still satisfying the constraint to maintain good water quality in Bolinao. while extremely strong on the modeling, the paper could have been further improved with more depth on the ecological issues and the overall quality of the writing U.S. Military Academy The paper from the U.S. Military Academy included perhaps the clearest understanding and presentation of the ecological problem and issues among all submissions. The paper was extremely well written and researched. Unlike many teams, the group chose discrete models(difference equations)as the primary tool for their analysis and then employed simulations to help with the optimization tasks. The team did an exceptional job of showing how their model outputsupportthemove from amono-to poly-culture-they addedblue mussel mollusks to the system to show the positive effects of such a cha They also proposed an optimal harvesting strategy involving multiple species. This paper could have been strengthened by adding detail about the models and modeling process Why Some Other Teams Weren't Outstanding In addition to the two Outstanding papers, the judges noted several other papers of equal merit in terms of the modeling effort but excluded from award due to issues with proper documentation. The issue wasnot the fact thatmate- rial from Websites or books was included-withinreason, quotations properly cited are appropriate. Rather, some teams used material taken directly from own ideas, failed to document a quoted passage as a quotation, or both their such sources(sometimes as much as one or more pages of text)in place166 The UIMAP Journal 30.2 (2009) particular, the judges felt that the Outstanding papers each demonstrated par￾ticular strengths in one of the important dimensions discussed in the previous section. No submission was able to dominate every area, but these two teams were dearly superior in different ways. China University of Mining and Technology The China University of Mining and Technology submission was notable for the impressive array of modeling techniques utilized in attacking the problems. There were otherpaperswith a similar level of modeling, but this group not only described the modeling process dearly but connected the models coherently to the problem at hand. As with many of the teams, the principal models used were differential equations (Volterramodels). Theteam also usedthe Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), as well as nonlinear optimization to improve their models and to address the later requirements of the problem. They propose strengthening the "middle strata of the foodweb" by introducing herbivorous species to the polyculture. They also propose a strategy for harvesting various species while still satisfying the constraint to maintain good water quality in Bolinao. While extremely strong on the modeling, the paper could have been further improved with more depth on the ecological issues and the overall quality of the writing. U.S. Military Academy The paper from the U.S. Military Academy included perhaps the dearest understanding and presentation of the ecological problem and issues among all submissions. The paper was extremely well written and researched. Unlike many teams, the group chose discrete models (difference equations) as the primary tool for their analysis and then employed simulations to help with the optimization tasks. The team did an exceptional job of showing how their model output support the move from a mono- to poly-culture--they addedblue mussel mollusks to the system to show the positive effects of such a change. They also proposed an optimal harvesting strategy involving multiple species. This paper could have been strengthened by adding detail about the models and modeling process. Why Some Other Teams Weren't Outstanding In addition to the two Outstanding papers, the judges noted several other papers of equal merit in terms of the modeling effort but excluded from award due to issues with proper documentation. The issue was not the fact that mate￾rial from Websites or books was included-within reason, quotations properly cited are appropriate. Rather, some teams used material taken directly from such sources (sometimes as much as one or more pages of text) in place of their own ideas, failed to document a quoted passage as a quotation, or both