Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers

Zurell, Damaris, Berger, Uta, Cabral, Juliano S., Jeltsch, Florian, Meynard, Christine N., Münkemüller, Tamara, Nehrbass, Nana, Pagel, Jörn, Reineking, Björn, Schröder, Boris, Grimm, Volker·2010·Oikos

Abstract

Ecologists carry a well‐stocked toolbox with a great variety of sampling methods, statistical analyses and modelling tools, and new methods are constantly appearing. Evaluation and optimisation of these methods is crucial to guide methodological choices. Simulating error‐free data or taking high‐quality data to qualify methods is common practice. Here, we emphasise the methodology of the ‘virtual ecologist’ (VE) approach where simulated data and observer models are used to mimic real species and how they are ‘virtually’ observed. This virtual data is then subjected to statistical analyses and modelling, and the results are evaluated against the ‘true’ simulated data. The VE approach is an intuitive and powerful evaluation framework that allows a quality assessment of sampling protocols, analyses and modelling tools. It works under controlled conditions as well as under consideration of confounding factors such as animal movement and biased observer behaviour. In this review, we promote the approach as a rigorous research tool, and demonstrate its capabilities and practical relevance. We explore past uses of VE in different ecological research fields, where it mainly has been used to test and improve sampling regimes as well as for testing and comparing models, for example species distribution models. We discuss its benefits as well as potential limitations, and provide some practical considerations for designing VE studies. Finally, research fields are identified for which the approach could be useful in the future. We conclude that VE could foster the integration of theoretical and empirical work and stimulate work that goes far beyond sampling methods, leading to new questions, theories, and better mechanistic understanding of ecological systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Zurell, D., Berger, U., Cabral, J. S., Jeltsch, F., Meynard, C. N., Münkemüller, T., Nehrbass, N., Pagel, J., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., & Grimm, V.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04
Volume
119
Issue
4
Pages
622-635
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2049015414
Cited by
361
References
3
FWCI
17.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x
The paper
Zurell, D., Berger, U., Cabral, J. S., Jeltsch, F., Meynard, C. N., Münkemüller, T., Nehrbass, N., Pagel, J., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., & Grimm, V. (2010). The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.