{"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}
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.
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.