Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42591654›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2026

Thinking Outside the Black Box: Seven Guidelines for GenAI Use in the Ecological Sciences.

Nina C Ferrari, Emily E Conklin, Amelia A Fitch, Dustin G Gannon, Rossana Macedo, Aidan Place, Hannah R Sachs, Eugene Seo, Matthew J Weldy, Matthew G Betts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. 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

10 authors.

Nina C FerrariDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4205-9708
Emily E ConklinDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.
Amelia A FitchDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.
Dustin G GannonDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6936-8626
Rossana MacedoDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.
Aidan PlaceDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.
Hannah R SachsDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.
Eugene SeoDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5373-6087
Matthew J WeldyDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8627-2466
Matthew G BettsDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7100-2551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly incorporated into ecological workflows at every stage of the scientific process, from hypothesis generation and data collection to synthesis, analysis, manuscript preparation, and peer review. This rapid integration presents new opportunities for discovery but also poses fundamental challenges to the epistemological foundations of the field. We discuss how the uncritical adoption of GenAI risks eroding core principles of ecological inquiry, including idea generation, reproducibility, transparency, and engagement with natural systems. By prioritizing scale, speed, and statistical pattern detection over rigorous theory development and testing, GenAI may shift research away from theory-driven questions and toward large-scale data-mining approaches. GenAI tools offer clear benefits when used thoughtfully; these include expanded access to information and the ability to synthesize across otherwise disparate disciplines and datasets. But overemphasis on these approaches could have adverse impacts on the field, including reducing reproducibility and ecological inference and reinforcing existing inequities in knowledge production. Here, we identify key challenges associated with GenAI integration in the field of ecology and provide seven actionable guidelines to support its responsible and effective use. We call for a concerted effort to engage in reflective and intentional use of GenAI in ecological research, resisting pressures to prioritize efficiency over the rigor, creativity, inclusivity, and societal relevance of our field.

Indexed as

ecologygenerative artificial intelligencelarge language modelsreproducibilityresearch ethicsscientific workflows

Identifiers

PMID42591654
PMCPMC13462311

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.