在多实验室环境中测试昆虫行为生态学研究的可重复性,为提高实验严谨性提供了机会。

IF 9.8 1区 生物学 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
PLoS Biology Pub Date : 2025-04-22 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003019
Carolin Mundinger, Nora K E Schulz, Pragya Singh, Steven Janz, Maximilian Schurig, Jacob Seidemann, Joachim Kurtz, Caroline Müller, Holger Schielzeth, Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch, S Helene Richter
{"title":"在多实验室环境中测试昆虫行为生态学研究的可重复性,为提高实验严谨性提供了机会。","authors":"Carolin Mundinger, Nora K E Schulz, Pragya Singh, Steven Janz, Maximilian Schurig, Jacob Seidemann, Joachim Kurtz, Caroline Müller, Holger Schielzeth, Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch, S Helene Richter","doi":"10.1371/journal.pbio.3003019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The reproducibility of studies involving insect species is an underexplored area in the broader discussion about poor reproducibility in science. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic multi-laboratory investigation into the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior. We implemented a 3 × 3 experimental design, incorporating three study sites, and three independent experiments on three insect species from different orders: the turnip sawfly (Athalia rosae, Hymenoptera), the meadow grasshopper (Pseudochorthippus parallelus, Orthoptera), and the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum, Coleoptera). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we compared the consistency and accuracy of treatment effects on insect behavioral traits across replicate experiments. We successfully reproduced the overall statistical treatment effect in 83% of the replicate experiments, but overall effect size replication was achieved in only 66% of the replicates. Thus, though demonstrating sufficient reproducibility in some measures, this study also provides the first experimental evidence for cases of poor reproducibility in insect experiments. Our findings further show that reasons causing poor reproducibility established in rodent research also hold for other study organisms and research questions. We believe that a rethinking of current best practices is required to face reproducibility issues in insect studies but also across disciplines. Specifically, we advocate for adopting open research practices and the implementation of methodological strategies that reduce bias and problems arising from over-standardization. With respect to the latter, the introduction of systematic variation through multi-laboratory or heterogenized designs may contribute to improved reproducibility in studies involving any living organisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":49001,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Biology","volume":"23 4","pages":"e3003019"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12013911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.\",\"authors\":\"Carolin Mundinger, Nora K E Schulz, Pragya Singh, Steven Janz, Maximilian Schurig, Jacob Seidemann, Joachim Kurtz, Caroline Müller, Holger Schielzeth, Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch, S Helene Richter\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pbio.3003019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The reproducibility of studies involving insect species is an underexplored area in the broader discussion about poor reproducibility in science. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic multi-laboratory investigation into the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior. We implemented a 3 × 3 experimental design, incorporating three study sites, and three independent experiments on three insect species from different orders: the turnip sawfly (Athalia rosae, Hymenoptera), the meadow grasshopper (Pseudochorthippus parallelus, Orthoptera), and the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum, Coleoptera). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we compared the consistency and accuracy of treatment effects on insect behavioral traits across replicate experiments. We successfully reproduced the overall statistical treatment effect in 83% of the replicate experiments, but overall effect size replication was achieved in only 66% of the replicates. Thus, though demonstrating sufficient reproducibility in some measures, this study also provides the first experimental evidence for cases of poor reproducibility in insect experiments. Our findings further show that reasons causing poor reproducibility established in rodent research also hold for other study organisms and research questions. We believe that a rethinking of current best practices is required to face reproducibility issues in insect studies but also across disciplines. Specifically, we advocate for adopting open research practices and the implementation of methodological strategies that reduce bias and problems arising from over-standardization. With respect to the latter, the introduction of systematic variation through multi-laboratory or heterogenized designs may contribute to improved reproducibility in studies involving any living organisms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Biology\",\"volume\":\"23 4\",\"pages\":\"e3003019\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12013911/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003019\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

涉及昆虫物种的研究的可重复性是一个未被充分探索的领域,在更广泛的讨论中,科学上的低可重复性。我们的研究通过对昆虫行为的生态学研究的可重复性进行系统的多实验室调查来解决这一差距。本研究采用3 × 3实验设计,包括3个研究点,对3种不同目昆虫进行3个独立实验,分别是:膜翅目萝卜叶蛉(Athalia rosae)、直翅目草地蚱蜢(Pseudochorthippus parallelus)和鞘翅目赤粉甲虫(Tribolium castaneum)。利用随机效应荟萃分析,我们比较了重复实验中处理效果对昆虫行为特征的一致性和准确性。我们在83%的重复实验中成功再现了总体统计处理效果,但只有66%的重复实验实现了总体效应大小的复制。因此,本研究虽然在某些措施上显示了足够的可重复性,但也为昆虫实验中重复性差的情况提供了第一个实验证据。我们的研究结果进一步表明,在啮齿动物研究中建立的导致重复性差的原因也适用于其他研究生物和研究问题。我们认为,需要重新思考当前的最佳实践,以面对昆虫研究中的可重复性问题,也需要跨学科的问题。具体来说,我们提倡采用开放的研究实践和方法策略的实施,以减少偏见和过度标准化所产生的问题。对于后者,通过多实验室或异质化设计引入系统变异可能有助于提高涉及任何生物体的研究的可重复性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.

The reproducibility of studies involving insect species is an underexplored area in the broader discussion about poor reproducibility in science. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic multi-laboratory investigation into the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior. We implemented a 3 × 3 experimental design, incorporating three study sites, and three independent experiments on three insect species from different orders: the turnip sawfly (Athalia rosae, Hymenoptera), the meadow grasshopper (Pseudochorthippus parallelus, Orthoptera), and the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum, Coleoptera). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we compared the consistency and accuracy of treatment effects on insect behavioral traits across replicate experiments. We successfully reproduced the overall statistical treatment effect in 83% of the replicate experiments, but overall effect size replication was achieved in only 66% of the replicates. Thus, though demonstrating sufficient reproducibility in some measures, this study also provides the first experimental evidence for cases of poor reproducibility in insect experiments. Our findings further show that reasons causing poor reproducibility established in rodent research also hold for other study organisms and research questions. We believe that a rethinking of current best practices is required to face reproducibility issues in insect studies but also across disciplines. Specifically, we advocate for adopting open research practices and the implementation of methodological strategies that reduce bias and problems arising from over-standardization. With respect to the latter, the introduction of systematic variation through multi-laboratory or heterogenized designs may contribute to improved reproducibility in studies involving any living organisms.

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
PLoS Biology
PLoS Biology BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY-BIOLOGY
CiteScore
15.40
自引率
2.00%
发文量
359
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Biology is the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and focuses on publishing groundbreaking and relevant research in all areas of biological science. The journal features works at various scales, ranging from molecules to ecosystems, and also encourages interdisciplinary studies. PLOS Biology publishes articles that demonstrate exceptional significance, originality, and relevance, with a high standard of scientific rigor in methodology, reporting, and conclusions. The journal aims to advance science and serve the research community by transforming research communication to align with the research process. It offers evolving article types and policies that empower authors to share the complete story behind their scientific findings with a diverse global audience of researchers, educators, policymakers, patient advocacy groups, and the general public. PLOS Biology, along with other PLOS journals, is widely indexed by major services such as Crossref, Dimensions, DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, PLOS Biology is indexed by various other services including AGRICOLA, Biological Abstracts, BIOSYS Previews, CABI CAB Abstracts, CABI Global Health, CAPES, CAS, CNKI, Embase, Journal Guide, MEDLINE, and Zoological Record, ensuring that the research content is easily accessible and discoverable by a wide range of audiences.
×
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