4.5 Article

A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models

Journal

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
Volume 3, Issue 10, Pages 1382-1395

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Arizona Office of Research, Discovery, and Innovation, Institute of the Environment, the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
  2. College of Science on the postdoctoral cluster initiative-Bridging Biodiversity and Conservation Science
  3. NSF [DBI-1913673, DBI-1661510]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reporting specific modelling methods and metadata is essential to the reproducibility of ecological studies, yet guidelines rarely exist regarding what information should be noted. Here, we address this issue for ecological niche modelling or species distribution modelling, a rapidly developing toolset in ecology used across many aspects of biodiversity science. Our quantitative review of the recent literature reveals a general lack of sufficient information to fully reproduce the work. Over two-thirds of the examined studies neglected to report the version or access date of the underlying data, and only half reported model parameters. To address this problem, we propose adopting a checklist to guide studies in reporting at least the minimum information necessary for ecological niche modelling reproducibility, offering a straightforward way to balance efficiency and accuracy. We encourage the ecological niche modelling community, as well as journal reviewers and editors, to utilize and further develop this framework to facilitate and improve the reproducibility of future work. The proposed checklist framework is generalizable to other areas of ecology, especially those utilizing biodiversity data, environmental data and statistical modelling, and could also be adopted by a broader array of disciplines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available