Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41145681›Full record

ArticleNature ecology & evolution2025

Rigorous validation of ecological models against empirical time series.

Chuliang Song, Jonathan M Levine

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Chuliang SongDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. chuliang.song@ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7490-8626
Jonathan M LevineDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2857-7904

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) DEB-2022213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity of ecosystems poses a formidable challenge for validating ecological models. The prevailing inability to falsify models has resulted in an accumulation of models but not an accumulation of confidence. Here we introduce an approach rooted in queueing theory, termed the covariance criteria, that establishes a rigorous test for model validity based on covariance relationships between observable quantities. These criteria set a high bar for models to pass by specifying necessary conditions that must hold regardless of unobserved factors. We test our approach using observed time series data on three long-standing challenges in ecological theory: resolving competing models of predator-prey functional responses, disentangling ecological and evolutionary dynamics in systems with rapid evolution and detecting the often-elusive influence of higher-order species interactions. Across these diverse case studies, the covariance criteria consistently rule out inadequate models, while building confidence in those that provide strategically useful approximations. The covariance criteria approach is mathematically rigorous and computationally efficient, making it applicable to existing data and models.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemModels, BiologicalAnimalsBiological EvolutionFood ChainPredatory Behavior

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.