Dataset Information

EcoEvoApps: Interactive apps for theoretical models in ecology and evolutionary biology.

ABSTRACT: The integration of theory and data drives progress in science, but a persistent barrier to such integration in ecology and evolutionary biology is that theory is often developed and expressed in the form of mathematical models that can feel daunting and inaccessible for students and empiricists with variable quantitative training and attitudes towards math. A promising way to make mathematical models more approachable is to embed them into interactive tools with which one can visually evaluate model structures and directly explore model outcomes through simulation. To promote such interactive learning of quantitative models, we developed EcoEvoApps, a collection of free, open-source, and multilingual R/Shiny apps that include model overviews, interactive model simulations, and code to implement these models directly in R. The package currently focuses on canonical models of population dynamics, species interactions, and landscape ecology. These apps help illustrate fundamental results from theoretical ecology and can serve as valuable teaching tools in classroom settings. We present data from student surveys which show that students rate these apps as useful learning tools, and that using interactive apps leads to substantial gains in students' interest and confidence in working with mathematical models. This points to the potential for interactive activities to make theoretical models more accessible to a wider audience, and thus facilitate the feedback between theory and data across ecology and evolutionary biology.

SUBMITTER: McGuire RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9719042 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

EcoEvoApps: Interactive apps for theoretical models in ecology and evolutionary biology.

McGuire Rosa M RM Hayashi Kenji T KT Yan Xinyi X Caritá Vaz Marcel M Cinoğlu Damla D Cowen Madeline C MC Martínez-Blancas Alejandra A Sullivan Lauren L LL Vazquez-Morales Sheila S Kandlikar Gaurav S GS

Ecology and evolution 20221203 12

The integration of theory and data drives progress in science, but a persistent barrier to such integration in ecology and evolutionary biology is that theory is often developed and expressed in the form of mathematical models that can feel daunting and inaccessible for students and empiricists with variable quantitative training and attitudes towards math. A promising way to make mathematical models more approachable is to embed them into interactive tools with which one can visually evaluate m ...[more]

PMID: 36479028

Similar Datasets

Project description:Disparities remain in the representation of marginalized students in STEM. Classroom-based experiential learning opportunities can increase student confidence and academic success; however, the effectiveness of extending learning to outdoor settings is unknown. Our objectives were to examine (a) demographic gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) major completion, college graduation, and GPAs for students who did and did not enroll in field courses, (b) whether under-represented demographic groups were less likely to enroll in field courses, and (c) whether under-represented demographic groups were more likely to feel increased competency in science-related tasks (hereafter, self-efficacy) after participating in field courses. We compared the relationships among academic success measures and demographic data (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation, and gender) for UC Santa Cruz undergraduate students admitted between 2008 and 2019 who participated in field courses (N = 941 students) and who did not (N = 28,215 students). Additionally, we administered longitudinal surveys to evaluate self-efficacy gains during field-based versus classroom-based courses (N = 570 students). We found no differences in the proportion of students matriculating at the university as undecided, proposed EEB, or proposed other majors across demographic groups. However, five years later, under-represented students were significantly less likely to graduate with EEB degrees, indicating retention rather than recruitment drives disparities in representation. This retention gap is partly due to a lower rate of college completion and partly through attrition to other majors. Although under-represented students were less likely to enroll in field courses, field courses were associated with higher self-efficacy gains, higher college graduation rates, higher EEB major retention, and higher GPAs at graduation. All demographic groups experienced significant increases in self-efficacy during field-based but not lecture-based courses. Together, our findings suggest that increasing the number of field courses and actively facilitating access to students from under-represented groups can be a powerful tool for increasing STEM diversity.

Project description:BackgroundFloral nectar is an important determinant of plant-pollinator interactions and an integral component of pollination syndromes, suggesting it is under pollinator-mediated selection. However, compared to floral display traits, we know little about the evolutionary ecology of nectar. Combining a literature review with a meta-analysis approach, we summarize the evidence for heritable variation in nectar traits and link this variation to pollinator response and plant fitness. We further review associations between nectar traits and floral signals and discuss them in the context of honest signalling and targets of selection.ScopeAlthough nectar is strongly influenced by environmental factors, heritable variation in nectar production rate has been documented in several populations (mean h2 = 0.31). Almost nothing is known about heritability of other nectar traits, such as sugar and amino acid concentrations. Only a handful of studies have quantified selection on nectar traits, and few find statistically significant selection. Pollinator responses to nectar traits indicate they may drive selection, but studies tying pollinator preferences to plant fitness are lacking. So far, only one study conclusively identified pollinators as selective agents on a nectar trait, and the role of microbes, herbivores, nectar robbers and abiotic factors in nectar evolution is largely hypothetical. Finally, there is a trend for positive correlations among floral cues and nectar traits, indicating honest signalling of rewards.ConclusionsImportant progress can be made by studies that quantify current selection on nectar in natural populations, as well as experimental approaches that identify the target traits and selective agents involved. Signal-reward associations suggest that correlational selection may shape evolution of nectar traits, and studies exploring these more complex forms of natural selection are needed. Many questions about nectar evolution remain unanswered, making this a field ripe for future research.

Project description:Since the early 1990s, ecologists and evolutionary biologists have aggregated primary research using meta-analytic methods to understand ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Meta-analyses can resolve long-standing disputes, dispel spurious claims, and generate new research questions. At their worst, however, meta-analysis publications are wolves in sheep's clothing: subjective with biased conclusions, hidden under coats of objective authority. Conclusions can be rendered unreliable by inappropriate statistical methods, problems with the methods used to select primary research, or problems within the primary research itself. Because of these risks, meta-analyses are increasingly conducted as part of systematic reviews, which use structured, transparent, and reproducible methods to collate and summarise evidence. For readers to determine whether the conclusions from a systematic review or meta-analysis should be trusted - and to be able to build upon the review - authors need to report what they did, why they did it, and what they found. Complete, transparent, and reproducible reporting is measured by 'reporting quality'. To assess perceptions and standards of reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology, we surveyed 208 researchers with relevant experience (as authors, reviewers, or editors), and conducted detailed evaluations of 102 systematic review and meta-analysis papers published between 2010 and 2019. Reporting quality was far below optimal and approximately normally distributed. Measured reporting quality was lower than what the community perceived, particularly for the systematic review methods required to measure trustworthiness. The minority of assessed papers that referenced a guideline (~16%) showed substantially higher reporting quality than average, and surveyed researchers showed interest in using a reporting guideline to improve reporting quality. The leading guideline for improving reporting quality of systematic reviews is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Here we unveil an extension of PRISMA to serve the meta-analysis community in ecology and evolutionary biology: PRISMA-EcoEvo (version 1.0). PRISMA-EcoEvo is a checklist of 27 main items that, when applicable, should be reported in systematic review and meta-analysis publications summarising primary research in ecology and evolutionary biology. In this explanation and elaboration document, we provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors, with explanations for each item on the checklist, including supplementary examples from published papers. Authors can consult this PRISMA-EcoEvo guideline both in the planning and writing stages of a systematic review and meta-analysis, to increase reporting quality of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers and editors can use the checklist to assess reporting quality in the manuscripts they review. Overall, PRISMA-EcoEvo is a resource for the ecology and evolutionary biology community to facilitate transparent and comprehensively reported systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Project description:Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small "many analyst" study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.

Dataset Information

EcoEvoApps: Interactive apps for theoretical models in ecology and evolutionary biology.

Publications

EcoEvoApps: Interactive apps for theoretical models in ecology and evolutionary biology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets