Dataset Information

Increased adoption of best practices in ecological forecasting enables comparisons of forecastability.

ABSTRACT: Near-term iterative forecasting is a powerful tool for ecological decision support and has the potential to transform our understanding of ecological predictability. However, to this point, there has been no cross-ecosystem analysis of near-term ecological forecasts, making it difficult to synthesize diverse research efforts and prioritize future developments for this emerging field. In this study, we analyzed 178 near-term (≤10-yr forecast horizon) ecological forecasting papers to understand the development and current state of near-term ecological forecasting literature and to compare forecast accuracy across scales and variables. Our results indicated that near-term ecological forecasting is widespread and growing: forecasts have been produced for sites on all seven continents and the rate of forecast publication is increasing over time. As forecast production has accelerated, some best practices have been proposed and application of these best practices is increasing. In particular, data publication, forecast archiving, and workflow automation have all increased significantly over time. However, adoption of proposed best practices remains low overall: for example, despite the fact that uncertainty is often cited as an essential component of an ecological forecast, only 45% of papers included uncertainty in their forecast outputs. As the use of these proposed best practices increases, near-term ecological forecasting has the potential to make significant contributions to our understanding of forecastability across scales and variables. In this study, we found that forecastability (defined here as realized forecast accuracy) decreased in predictable patterns over 1-7 d forecast horizons. Variables that were closely related (i.e., chlorophyll and phytoplankton) displayed very similar trends in forecastability, while more distantly related variables (i.e., pollen and evapotranspiration) exhibited significantly different patterns. Increasing use of proposed best practices in ecological forecasting will allow us to examine the forecastability of additional variables and timescales in the future, providing a robust analysis of the fundamental predictability of ecological variables.

SUBMITTER: Lewis ASL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9285336 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increased adoption of best practices in ecological forecasting enables comparisons of forecastability.

Lewis Abigail S L ASL Woelmer Whitney M WM Wander Heather L HL Howard Dexter W DW Smith John W JW McClure Ryan P RP Lofton Mary E ME Hammond Nicholas W NW Corrigan Rachel S RS Thomas R Quinn RQ Carey Cayelan C CC

Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America 20211214 2

Near-term iterative forecasting is a powerful tool for ecological decision support and has the potential to transform our understanding of ecological predictability. However, to this point, there has been no cross-ecosystem analysis of near-term ecological forecasts, making it difficult to synthesize diverse research efforts and prioritize future developments for this emerging field. In this study, we analyzed 178 near-term (≤10-yr forecast horizon) ecological forecasting papers to understand th ...[more]

PMID: 34800082

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a measurement methodology that involves the repeated collection of real-time data on participants' behavior and experience in their natural environment. While EMA allows researchers to gain valuable insights into dynamic behavioral processes, the need for frequent self-reporting can be burdensome and disruptive. Compliance with EMA protocols is important for accurate, unbiased sampling; yet, there is no "gold standard" for EMA study design to promote compliance.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to use a factorial design to identify optimal study design factors, or combinations of factors, for achieving the highest completion rates for smartphone-based EMAs.MethodsParticipants recruited from across the United States were randomized to 1 of 2 levels on each of 5 design factors in a 2×2×2×2×2 design (32 conditions): factor 1-number of questions per EMA survey (15 vs 25); factor 2-number of EMAs per day (2 vs 4); factor 3-EMA prompting schedule (random vs fixed times); factor 4-payment type (US $1 paid per EMA vs payment based on the percentage of EMAs completed); and factor 5-EMA response scale type (ie, slider-type response scale vs Likert-type response scale; this is the only within-person factor; each participant was randomized to complete slider- or Likert-type questions for the first 14 days or second 14 days of the study period). All participants were asked to complete prompted EMAs for 28 days. The effect of each factor on EMA completion was examined, as well as the effects of factor interactions on EMA completion. Finally, relations between demographic and socioenvironmental factors and EMA completion were examined.ResultsParticipants (N=411) were aged 48.4 (SD 12.1) years; 75.7% (311/411) were female, 72.5% (298/411) were White, 18.0% (74/411) were Black or African American, 2.7% (11/411) were Asian, 1.5% (6/411) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.4% (22/411) belonged to more than one race, and 9.6% (38/396) were Hispanic/Latino. On average, participants completed 83.8% (28,948/34,552) of scheduled EMAs, and 96.6% (397/411) of participants completed the follow-up survey. Results indicated that there were no significant main effects of the design factors on compliance and no significant interactions. Analyses also indicated that older adults, those without a history of substance use problems, and those without current depression tended to complete more EMAs than their counterparts. No other demographic or socioenvironmental factors were related to EMA completion rates. Finally, the app was well liked (ie, system usability scale score=82.7), and there was a statistically significant positive association between liking the app and EMA compliance.ConclusionsStudy results have broad implications for developing best practices guidelines for future studies that use EMA methodologies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT05194228; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05194228.

Project description:ImportanceResearch funders can reduce research waste and publication bias by requiring their grantees to register and report clinical trials.ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which 21 major European research funders' efforts to reduce research waste and publication bias in clinical trials meet World Health Organization (WHO) best practice benchmarks and to investigate areas for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was based on 2 to 3 independent assessments of each funder's publicly available documentation and validation of results with funders during 2021. Included funders were the 21 largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic medical research funders in Europe, with a combined budget of more than US $22 billion.ExposuresScoring of funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into 4 broad categories: trial registries, academic publication, monitoring, and sanctions. Funder references to reporting standards were captured.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was funder adoption or nonadoption of 11 policy and monitoring measures to reduce research waste and publication bias as set out by WHO best practices. The secondary outcomes were whether and how funder policies referred to reporting standards. Outcomes were preregistered after a pilot phase that used the same outcome measures.ResultsAmong 21 of the largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic funders in Europe, some best practices were more widely adopted than others, with 14 funders (66.7%) mandating prospective trial registration and 6 funders (28.6%) requiring that trial results be made public on trial registries within 12 months of trial completion. Less than half of funders actively monitored whether trials were registered (9 funders [42.9%]) or whether results were made public (8 funders [38.1%]). Funders implemented a mean of 4 of 11 best practices in clinical trial transparency (36.4%) set out by WHO. The extent to which funders adopted WHO best practice items varied widely, ranging from 0 practices for the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the ministries of health of Germany and Italy to 10 practices (90.9%) for the UK National Institute of Health Research. Overall, 9 funders referred to reporting standards in their policies.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that many European medical research funder policy and monitoring measures fell short of WHO best practices. These findings suggest that funders worldwide may need to identify and address gaps in policies and processes.

Dataset Information

Increased adoption of best practices in ecological forecasting enables comparisons of forecastability.

Publications

Increased adoption of best practices in ecological forecasting enables comparisons of forecastability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets