Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42035320›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2026

Calibration, Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of Complex Ecological Models-A Review.

Anne-Kathleen Malchow, Florian Hartig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology letters, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Anne-Kathleen MalchowTheoretical Ecology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Florian HartigTheoretical Ecology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6255-9059

Funding

Bavarian State Ministry for Science and the Arts bayklif
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecologists increasingly use complex models to predict and understand ecological systems and their responses to external drivers or anthropogenic pressures. An ongoing challenge in this context is quantifying and reducing uncertainty in model inputs, parameters and structure and understanding their implications for model predictions. Three major methodological fields have emerged in this context: sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis and model inversion or calibration. While these three methods are an integral part of any modelling or forecasting process, the corresponding literature is often scattered, and distinct terminology and definitions are used in different methodological and scientific contexts. Here, we review and connect these three fields and discuss best practices for their practical implementation with a focus on complex ecological models. We classify relevant types of uncertainty, discuss the complementary roles of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, give an overview of available calibration methods and emphasize the importance of effective communication of uncertainty. We conclude that using state-of-the-art methods for understanding model behaviour as well as consistently accounting for all uncertainties is essential for correctly understanding model predictions and thus forms the basis for a responsible use of models in ecological decision making.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemModels, BiologicalCalibrationUncertaintyBayesian inferenceinformal likelihoodinverse modellingparameter estimationpredictive uncertaintysensitivity analysissimulation modelsuncertainty propagation

Identifiers

PMID42035320
PMCPMC13110421

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.