Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39474477›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

Antecedent Effect Models as an Exploratory Tool to Link Climate Drivers to Herbaceous Perennial Population Dynamics Data.

Aldo Compagnoni, Dylan Childs, Tiffany M Knight, Roberto Salguero-Gómez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aldo CompagnoniMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8302-7492
Dylan ChildsDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
Tiffany M KnightMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0318-1567
Roberto Salguero-GómezDepartment of Biology University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-4433

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding mechanisms and predicting natural population responses to climate is a key goal of Ecology. However, studies explicitly linking climate to population dynamics remain limited. Antecedent effect models are a set of statistical tools that capitalize on the evidence provided by climate and population data to select time windows correlated with a response (e.g., survival, reproduction). Thus, these models can serve as both a predictive and exploratory tool. We compare the predictive performance of antecedent effect models against simpler models and showcase their exploratory analysis potential by selecting a case study with high predictive power. We fit three antecedent effect models: (1) weighted mean models (WMM), which weigh the importance of monthly anomalies based on a Gaussian curve, (2) stochastic antecedent models (SAM), which weigh the importance of monthly anomalies using a Dirichlet process, and (3) regularized regressions using the Finnish horseshoe model (FHM), which estimate a separate effect size for each monthly anomaly. We compare these approaches to a linear model using a yearly climatic predictor and a null model with no predictors. We use demographic data from 77 natural populations of 34 plant species ranging between seven and 36 years in length. We then fit models to the asymptotic population growth rate (

Indexed as

Bayesian moving windowCOMPADRE Plant Matrix Databasecross‐validationenvironmental driversforecastinglagged climate effectpopulation growth rateregularizationvital rate

Identifiers

PMID39474477
PMCPMC11519827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.