生态学需要一个因果关系的彻底检查。

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Daniel W Franks, Graeme D Ruxton, Tom Sherratt
{"title":"生态学需要一个因果关系的彻底检查。","authors":"Daniel W Franks, Graeme D Ruxton, Tom Sherratt","doi":"10.1111/brv.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecology has yet to embrace causal inference, yet most questions in ecology are causal. Despite the common use of terms that imply causation, such as \"shapes\", \"drives\", or \"impacts\", many studies shy away from directly acknowledging their causal ambitions. This avoidance not only obscures the true intent of research but also underpins a broader challenge within the field's approach to science. Ecology relies heavily on observational data, and so the necessity for robust causal inference becomes paramount. However, causal methods are also needed for non-randomised experiments. We critique the predominance in ecology of scientifically empty statistical procedures that lack scientific clarity and value. We advocate for a shift towards explicit causal inference, arguing that understanding causality is not confined to randomised controlled trials but can also be enriched through observational data when paired with rigorous causal inference methodologies. This paper elucidates the common pitfalls in ecological studies, such as throwing all variables into an analysis, use of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for model selection, the \"Table 2 fallacy\" and the misuse of controls: all of which can lead to misleading scientific understanding. The good news is that causal inference is not primarily a statistical problem, but rather a scientific one that is accessible to all ecologists. We can achieve reasonable progress by continuing to use the standard statistical toolbox based around regression models, familiar to many ecologists, paired with causal diagrams. For regression, causal inference is about understanding what we should condition on (good controls) and what we should not condition on (bad controls). We provide not only a critique but a constructive guide, aiming to demystify causal inference and encourage its adoption in ecological studies using familiar approaches. By doing so, we seek to elevate the quality and impact of ecological research, moving beyond routine convenient statistical procedures and towards a more scientifically sound and insightful understanding of ecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecology needs a causal overhaul.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel W Franks, Graeme D Ruxton, Tom Sherratt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/brv.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ecology has yet to embrace causal inference, yet most questions in ecology are causal. Despite the common use of terms that imply causation, such as \\\"shapes\\\", \\\"drives\\\", or \\\"impacts\\\", many studies shy away from directly acknowledging their causal ambitions. This avoidance not only obscures the true intent of research but also underpins a broader challenge within the field's approach to science. Ecology relies heavily on observational data, and so the necessity for robust causal inference becomes paramount. However, causal methods are also needed for non-randomised experiments. We critique the predominance in ecology of scientifically empty statistical procedures that lack scientific clarity and value. We advocate for a shift towards explicit causal inference, arguing that understanding causality is not confined to randomised controlled trials but can also be enriched through observational data when paired with rigorous causal inference methodologies. This paper elucidates the common pitfalls in ecological studies, such as throwing all variables into an analysis, use of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for model selection, the \\\"Table 2 fallacy\\\" and the misuse of controls: all of which can lead to misleading scientific understanding. The good news is that causal inference is not primarily a statistical problem, but rather a scientific one that is accessible to all ecologists. We can achieve reasonable progress by continuing to use the standard statistical toolbox based around regression models, familiar to many ecologists, paired with causal diagrams. For regression, causal inference is about understanding what we should condition on (good controls) and what we should not condition on (bad controls). We provide not only a critique but a constructive guide, aiming to demystify causal inference and encourage its adoption in ecological studies using familiar approaches. By doing so, we seek to elevate the quality and impact of ecological research, moving beyond routine convenient statistical procedures and towards a more scientifically sound and insightful understanding of ecology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生态学尚未接受因果推理,但生态学中的大多数问题都是因果关系。尽管经常使用暗示因果关系的术语,如“形状”、“驱动”或“影响”,但许多研究回避直接承认他们的因果关系野心。这种回避不仅模糊了研究的真实意图,而且还支持了该领域对科学方法的更广泛挑战。生态学在很大程度上依赖于观测数据,因此强有力的因果推理的必要性变得至关重要。然而,非随机实验也需要因果方法。我们批评在生态学中占主导地位的科学空洞的统计程序,缺乏科学的清晰度和价值。我们提倡向明确的因果推理转变,认为理解因果关系并不局限于随机对照试验,也可以通过观察数据与严格的因果推理方法相结合来丰富因果关系。本文阐明了生态学研究中常见的陷阱,如将所有变量放入分析中,使用赤池信息准则(AIC)进行模型选择,“表2谬误”和滥用控制:所有这些都可能导致误导性的科学理解。好消息是,因果推理主要不是一个统计问题,而是一个所有生态学家都能理解的科学问题。我们可以通过继续使用基于回归模型的标准统计工具箱来取得合理的进展,这是许多生态学家所熟悉的,并与因果图相结合。对于回归,因果推理是关于理解我们应该以什么为条件(好的控制)和不以什么为条件(坏的控制)。我们不仅提供了一种批评,而且提供了一种建设性的指导,旨在揭开因果推理的神秘面纱,并鼓励在使用熟悉方法的生态研究中采用它。通过这样做,我们寻求提高生态研究的质量和影响,超越常规的方便的统计程序,朝着更科学合理和更深刻的理解生态学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ecology needs a causal overhaul.

Ecology has yet to embrace causal inference, yet most questions in ecology are causal. Despite the common use of terms that imply causation, such as "shapes", "drives", or "impacts", many studies shy away from directly acknowledging their causal ambitions. This avoidance not only obscures the true intent of research but also underpins a broader challenge within the field's approach to science. Ecology relies heavily on observational data, and so the necessity for robust causal inference becomes paramount. However, causal methods are also needed for non-randomised experiments. We critique the predominance in ecology of scientifically empty statistical procedures that lack scientific clarity and value. We advocate for a shift towards explicit causal inference, arguing that understanding causality is not confined to randomised controlled trials but can also be enriched through observational data when paired with rigorous causal inference methodologies. This paper elucidates the common pitfalls in ecological studies, such as throwing all variables into an analysis, use of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for model selection, the "Table 2 fallacy" and the misuse of controls: all of which can lead to misleading scientific understanding. The good news is that causal inference is not primarily a statistical problem, but rather a scientific one that is accessible to all ecologists. We can achieve reasonable progress by continuing to use the standard statistical toolbox based around regression models, familiar to many ecologists, paired with causal diagrams. For regression, causal inference is about understanding what we should condition on (good controls) and what we should not condition on (bad controls). We provide not only a critique but a constructive guide, aiming to demystify causal inference and encourage its adoption in ecological studies using familiar approaches. By doing so, we seek to elevate the quality and impact of ecological research, moving beyond routine convenient statistical procedures and towards a more scientifically sound and insightful understanding of ecology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信