ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Let's DAG in: how directed acyclic graphs can help behavioural ecology be more transparent.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Divergence of environmental filtering: rock exposure rate filters reproductive traits whereas slope shape community richness.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Let's DAG in: how directed acyclic graphs can help behavioural ecology be more transparent.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are powerful tools for visualizing assumptions/hypotheses and causal inference. Although their use is becoming more widespread across various disciplines, they remain underutilised in behavioural ecology and evolution. Here, we point out why DAGs can serve as highly valuable tools in this field, particularly in the context of observational and field studies, which can feature many variables with complex relationships. Using concrete examples, we show that including DAGs in empirical studies helps clarify and summarize the key underlying assumptions, which are often implicit. With that, DAGs can be used to make researchers aware of bad controls and help them to explicitly think through the relationship between variables and their inclusion in statistical models. In addition, providing DAGs makes the work of reviewers and meta-analysis researchers easier, more rigorous and reliable. Overall, DAGs enhance understanding and transparency, ultimately improving study reproducibility and contributing to greater reliability and replicability across the field. With this paper, we hope to encourage all behavioural ecologists to include DAGs in their papers.
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.