Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Designing Environmental Field Studies

Eberhardt, L. L., Thomas, J. M.·1991·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

Field experiments in ecological and environmental research usually do not meet the criteria for modern experimental design. Subsampling is often mistakenly substituted for true replication, and sample sizes are too small for adequate power in tests of significance. In many cases, field—study objectives may be better served by various kinds of sampling procedures, even though the resulting inferences will be weaker than those obtainable through controlled experimentation. The present paper provides a classification and description of methods for designing environmental studies, with emphasis on techniques as yet little used in ecology. Eight categories of techniques for field studies are defined in terms of the nature of control exerted by the observer, by the presence or absence of a perturbation, and by the domain of study. The first two categories include classical experimental approaches, replicated and unreplicated. Sampling for modelling provides efficient designs for estimating parameters in a specified model. Intervention analysis measures the effect of a known perturbation in a time series. Observational studies contrast selected groups from a population, while analytical sampling provides comparisons over the entire population. Descriptive survey sampling estimates means or totals over an entire population, while sampling for pattern deals with spatial patterns over a selected region. We propose that the statistical concept of a "superpopulation" may be useful in ecology, and that it may be desirable to approach community and ecosystem studies in a sampling framework, with experimentation used for a fairly narrow range of subsidiary investigations. Much more attention to processes for drawing inferences about cause and effect is needed, in any case.

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 · 10.2307/1942999

Cites

44 of 44 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 44 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Eberhardt, L. L., & Thomas, J. M.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-03
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
53-73
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2055678767
Cited by
455
References
44
FWCI
29.37
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: Designing Environmental Field Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942999
The paper
Eberhardt, L. L., & Thomas, J. M. (1991). Designing Environmental Field Studies. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942999

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.