ReviewEcology and evolution2023
Reducing bias in experimental ecology through directed acyclic graphs.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?Ecology letters · 2025Pooled it
- Let's DAG in: how directed acyclic graphs can help behavioural ecology be more transparent.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Hepatic lipogenesis marked by GCKR-modulated triglycerides increases serum FGF21 in children/teens with obesity.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Parental early life environments drive transgenerational plasticity of offspring metabolism in a freshwater fish (Biology letters · 2023Article
- Reducing bias in experimental ecology through directed acyclic graphs.Ecology and evolution · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecologists often rely on randomized control trials (RCTs) to quantify causal relationships in nature. Many of our foundational insights of ecological phenomena can be traced back to well-designed experiments, and RCTs continue to provide valuable insights today. Although RCTs are often regarded as the "gold standard" for causal inference, it is important to recognize that they too rely on a set of causal assumptions that must be justified and met by the researcher to draw valid causal conclusions. We use key ecological examples to show how biases such as confounding, overcontrol, and collider bias can occur in experimental setups. In tandem, we highlight how such biases can be removed through the application of the structural causal model (SCM) framework. The SCM framework visualizes the causal structure of a system or process under study using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and subsequently applies a set of graphical rules to remove bias from both observational and experimental data. We show how DAGs can be applied across ecological experimental studies to ensure proper study design and statistical analysis, leading to more accurate causal estimates drawn from experimental data. Although causal conclusions drawn from RCTs are often taken at face value, ecologists are increasingly becoming aware that experimental approaches must be carefully designed and analyzed to avoid potential biases. By applying DAGs as a visual and conceptual tool, experimental ecologists can increasingly meet the causal assumptions required for valid causal inference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.