Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261831›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2025

Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.

Carolin Mundinger, Nora K E Schulz, Pragya Singh, Steven Janz, Maximilian Schurig, Jacob Seidemann, Joachim Kurtz, Caroline Müller, Holger Schielzeth, Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Carolin MundingerDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3776-4090
Nora K E SchulzInstitute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-720X
Pragya SinghDepartment of Chemical Ecology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-3206
Steven JanzDepartment of Chemical Ecology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Maximilian SchurigInstitute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Jacob SeidemannInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Joachim KurtzInstitute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7258-459X
Caroline MüllerDepartment of Chemical Ecology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8447-534X
Holger SchielzethInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Vanessa T von KortzfleischDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4191-4434
S Helene RichterDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5990-0087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalEcologyInsectaAnimalsColeopteraHymenopteraReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignTribolium

Identifiers

PMID40261831
PMCPMC12013911

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.