Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The priority of prediction in ecological understanding

Houlahan, Jeff E., McKinney, Shawn T., Anderson, T. Michael, McGill, Brian J.·2017·Oikos

Abstract

The objective of science is to understand the natural world; we argue that prediction is the only way to demonstrate scientific understanding, implying that prediction should be a fundamental aspect of all scientific disciplines. Reproducibility is an essential requirement of good science and arises from the ability to develop models that make accurate predictions on new data. Ecology, however, with a few exceptions, has abandoned prediction as a central focus and faces its own crisis of reproducibility. Models are where ecological understanding is stored and they are the source of all predictions – no prediction is possible without a model of the world. Models can be improved in three ways: model variables, functional relationships among dependent and independent variables, and in parameter estimates. Ecologists rarely test to assess whether new models have made advances by identifying new and important variables, elucidating functional relationships, or improving parameter estimates. Without these tests it is difficult to know if we understand more today than we did yesterday. A new commitment to prediction in ecology would lead to, among other things, more mature (i.e. quantitative) hypotheses, prioritization of modeling techniques that are more appropriate for prediction (e.g. using continuous independent variables rather than categorical) and, ultimately, advancement towards a more general understanding of the natural world. Synthesis Ecology, with a few exceptions, has abandoned prediction and therefore the ability to demonstrate understanding. Here we address how this has inhibited progress in ecology and explore how a renewed focus on prediction would benefit ecologists. The lack of emphasis on prediction has resulted in a discipline that tests qualitative, imprecise hypotheses with little concern for whether the results are generalizable beyond where and when the data were collected. A renewed commitment to prediction would allow ecologists to address critical questions about the generalizability of our results and the progress we are making towards understanding the natural world.

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/oik.03726

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 237

Metadata

Authors
Houlahan, J. E., McKinney, S. T., Anderson, T. M., & McGill, B. J.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-13
Volume
126
Issue
1
Pages
1-7
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2510796315
Cited by
237
References
9
FWCI
138.03
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 priority of prediction in ecological understanding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/oik.03726
The paper
Houlahan, J. E., McKinney, S. T., Anderson, T. M., & McGill, B. J. (2017). The priority of prediction in ecological understanding. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03726

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.