Literature DB >> 29335575

Genotypic variability enhances the reproducibility of an ecological study.

Alexandru Milcu1,2, Ruben Puga-Freitas3, Aaron M Ellison4,5, Manuel Blouin3,6, Stefan Scheu7, Grégoire T Freschet8, Laura Rose9, Sebastien Barot10, Simone Cesarz11,12, Nico Eisenhauer11,12, Thomas Girin13, Davide Assandri14, Michael Bonkowski15, Nina Buchmann16, Olaf Butenschoen7,17, Sebastien Devidal18, Gerd Gleixner19, Arthur Gessler20,21, Agnès Gigon3, Anna Greiner9, Carlo Grignani14, Amandine Hansart22, Zachary Kayler21,23, Markus Lange19, Jean-Christophe Lata24, Jean-François Le Galliard22,24, Martin Lukac25,26, Neringa Mannerheim16, Marina E H Müller20, Anne Pando6, Paula Rotter9, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen9, Rahme Seyhun24, Katherine Urban-Mead8, Alexandra Weigelt11,12, Laura Zavattaro14, Jacques Roy18.   

Abstract

Many scientific disciplines are currently experiencing a 'reproducibility crisis' because numerous scientific findings cannot be repeated consistently. A novel but controversial hypothesis postulates that stringent levels of environmental and biotic standardization in experimental studies reduce reproducibility by amplifying the impacts of laboratory-specific environmental factors not accounted for in study designs. A corollary to this hypothesis is that a deliberate introduction of controlled systematic variability (CSV) in experimental designs may lead to increased reproducibility. To test this hypothesis, we had 14 European laboratories run a simple microcosm experiment using grass (Brachypodium distachyon L.) monocultures and grass and legume (Medicago truncatula Gaertn.) mixtures. Each laboratory introduced environmental and genotypic CSV within and among replicated microcosms established in either growth chambers (with stringent control of environmental conditions) or glasshouses (with more variable environmental conditions). The introduction of genotypic CSV led to 18% lower among-laboratory variability in growth chambers, indicating increased reproducibility, but had no significant effect in glasshouses where reproducibility was generally lower. Environmental CSV had little effect on reproducibility. Although there are multiple causes for the 'reproducibility crisis', deliberately including genetic variability may be a simple solution for increasing the reproducibility of ecological studies performed under stringently controlled environmental conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29335575     DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0434-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol        ISSN: 2397-334X            Impact factor:   15.460


  8 in total

Review 1.  A starting guide to root ecology: strengthening ecological concepts and standardising root classification, sampling, processing and trait measurements.

Authors:  Grégoire T Freschet; Loïc Pagès; Colleen M Iversen; Louise H Comas; Boris Rewald; Catherine Roumet; Jitka Klimešová; Marcin Zadworny; Hendrik Poorter; Johannes A Postma; Thomas S Adams; Agnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna; A Glyn Bengough; Elison B Blancaflor; Ivano Brunner; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Eric Garnier; Arthur Gessler; Sarah E Hobbie; Ina C Meier; Liesje Mommer; Catherine Picon-Cochard; Laura Rose; Peter Ryser; Michael Scherer-Lorenzen; Nadejda A Soudzilovskaia; Alexia Stokes; Tao Sun; Oscar J Valverde-Barrantes; Monique Weemstra; Alexandra Weigelt; Nina Wurzburger; Larry M York; Sarah A Batterman; Moemy Gomes de Moraes; Štěpán Janeček; Hans Lambers; Verity Salmon; Nishanth Tharayil; M Luke McCormack
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 10.323

Review 2.  A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models.

Authors:  Xiao Feng; Daniel S Park; Cassondra Walker; A Townsend Peterson; Cory Merow; Monica Papeş
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 15.460

3.  Understanding of researcher behavior is required to improve data reliability.

Authors:  Mark N Wass; Larry Ray; Martin Michaelis
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 6.524

4.  Variation under domestication in animal models: the case of the Mexican axolotl.

Authors:  María Torres-Sánchez
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 3.969

Review 5.  Ecotrons: Powerful and versatile ecosystem analysers for ecology, agronomy and environmental science.

Authors:  Jacques Roy; François Rineau; Hans J De Boeck; Ivan Nijs; Thomas Pütz; Samuel Abiven; John A Arnone; Craig V M Barton; Natalie Beenaerts; Nicolas Brüggemann; Matteo Dainese; Timo Domisch; Nico Eisenhauer; Sarah Garré; Alban Gebler; Andrea Ghirardo; Richard L Jasoni; George Kowalchuk; Damien Landais; Stuart H Larsen; Vincent Leemans; Jean-François Le Galliard; Bernard Longdoz; Florent Massol; Teis N Mikkelsen; Georg Niedrist; Clément Piel; Olivier Ravel; Joana Sauze; Anja Schmidt; Jörg-Peter Schnitzler; Leonardo H Teixeira; Mark G Tjoelker; Wolfgang W Weisser; Barbro Winkler; Alexandru Milcu
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 10.863

6.  Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

Authors:  Vanessa Tabea von Kortzfleisch; Oliver Ambrée; Natasha A Karp; Neele Meyer; Janja Novak; Rupert Palme; Marianna Rosso; Chadi Touma; Hanno Würbel; Sylvia Kaiser; Norbert Sachser; S Helene Richter
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 9.593

7.  Replications, Comparisons, Sampling and the Problem of Representativeness in Animal Cognition Research.

Authors:  Benjamin G Farrar; Konstantinos Voudouris; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  Anim Behav Cogn       Date:  2021-05

8.  Improving reproducibility in animal research by splitting the study population into several 'mini-experiments'.

Authors:  Vanessa Tabea von Kortzfleisch; Natasha A Karp; Rupert Palme; Sylvia Kaiser; Norbert Sachser; S Helene Richter
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.