An official website of the United States government
ABSTRACT Ecology often seeks to answer causal questions, and while ecologists have a rich history of experimental approaches, novel observational data streams and the need to apply insights across naturally occurring conditions pose opportunities and challenges. Other fields have developed causal inference approaches that can enhance and expand our ability to answer ecological causal questions using observational or experimental data. However, the lack of comprehensive resources applying causal inference to ecological settings and jargon from multiple disciplines creates barriers. We introduce approaches for causal inference, discussing the main frameworks for counterfactual causal inference, how causal inference differs from other research aims and key challenges; the application of causal inference in experimental and quasi‐experimental study designs; appropriate interpretation of the results of causal inference approaches given their assumptions and biases; foundational papers; and the data requirements and trade‐offs between internal and external validity posed by different designs. We highlight that these designs generally prioritise internal validity over generalisability. Finally, we identify opportunities and considerations for ecologists to further integrate causal inference with synthesis science and meta‐analysis and expand the spatiotemporal scales at which causal inference is possible. We advocate for ecology as a field to collectively define best practices for causal inference.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 6, 2025
A causal inference framework for climate change attribution in ecology
As climate change increasingly affects biodiversity and ecosystem services, a key challenge in ecology is accurate attribution of these impacts. Though experimental studies have greatly advanced our understanding of climate change impacts on ecological systems, experimental results are difficult to generalize to real-world scenarios. To better capture realized impacts, ecologists can use observational data. Disentangling cause and effect using observational data, however, requires careful research design. Here we describe advances in causal inference that can improve climate change attribution in observational settings. Our framework includes five steps: 1) describe the theoretical foundation, 2) choose appropriate observational data sets, 3) design a causal inference analysis, 4) estimate a counterfactual scenario, and 5) evaluate assumptions and results using robustness checks. We then demonstrate this framework using a case study focused on detecting climate change impacts on whitebark pine growth in California’s Sierra Nevada. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and frontiers in ecological climate change attribution. Our aim is to provide an accessible foundation for applying observational causal inference to climate change attribution in ecology.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2340606
- PAR ID:
- 10575286
- Publisher / Repository:
- Authorea Inc.
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Institution:
- Authorea Inc.
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Most current statistics courses include some instruction relevant to causal inference. Whether this instruction is incorporated as material on randomized experiments or as an interpretation of associations measured by correlation or regression coefficients, the way in which this material is presented may have important implications for understanding causal inference fundamentals. Although the connection between study design and the ability to infer causality is often described well, the link between the language used to describe study results and causal attribution typically is not well defined. The current study investigates this relationship experimentally using a sample of students in a statistics course at a large western university in the United States. It also provides (non-experimental) evidence about the association between statistics instruction and the ability to understand appropriate causal attribution. The results from our experimental vignette study suggest that the wording of study findings impacts causal attribution by the reader, and, perhaps more surprisingly, that this variation in level of causal attribution across different wording conditions seems to pale in comparison to the variation across study contexts. More research, however, is needed to better understand how to tailor statistics instruction to make students sufficiently wary of unwarranted causal interpretation.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Experiments have long been the gold standard for causal inference in Ecology. As Ecology tackles progressively larger problems, however, we are moving beyond the scales at which randomised controlled experiments are feasible. To answer causal questions at scale, we need to also use observational data —something Ecologists tend to view with great scepticism. The major challenge using observational data for causal inference is confounding variables: variables affecting both a causal variable and response of interest. Unmeasured confounders—known or unknown—lead to statistical bias, creating spurious correlations and masking true causal relationships. To combat this omitted variable bias, other disciplines have developed rigorous approaches for causal inference from observational data that flexibly control for broad suites of confounding variables. We show how ecologists can harness some of these methods—causal diagrams to identify confounders coupled with nested sampling and statistical designs—to reduce risks of omitted variable bias. Using an example of estimating warming effects on snails, we show how current methods in Ecology (e.g., mixed models) produce incorrect inferences due to omitted variable bias and how alternative methods can eliminate it, improving causal inferences with weaker assumptions. Our goal is to expand tools for causal inference using observational and imperfect experimental data in Ecology.more » « less
-
Abstract Causal effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functions can be estimated using experimental or observational designs — designs that pose a tradeoff between drawing credible causal inferences from correlations and drawing generalizable inferences. Here, we develop a design that reduces this tradeoff and revisits the question of how plant species diversity affects productivity. Our design leverages longitudinal data from 43 grasslands in 11 countries and approaches borrowed from fields outside of ecology to draw causal inferences from observational data. Contrary to many prior studies, we estimate that increases in plot-level species richness caused productivity to decline: a 10% increase in richness decreased productivity by 2.4%, 95% CI [−4.1, −0.74]. This contradiction stems from two sources. First, prior observational studies incompletely control for confounding factors. Second, most experiments plant fewer rare and non-native species than exist in nature. Although increases in native, dominant species increased productivity, increases in rare and non-native species decreased productivity, making the average effect negative in our study. By reducing the tradeoff between experimental and observational designs, our study demonstrates how observational studies can complement prior ecological experiments and inform future ones.more » « less
-
A goal of many research programmes in biology is to extract meaningful insights from large, complex datasets. Researchers in ecology, evolution and behavior (EEB) often grapple with long-term, observational datasets from which they construct models to test causal hypotheses about biological processes. Similarly, epidemiologists analyse large, complex observational datasets to understand the distribution and determinants of human health. A key difference in the analytical workflows for these two distinct areas of biology is the delineation of data analysis tasks and explicit use of causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), widely adopted by epidemiologists. Here, we review the most recent causal inference literature and describe an analytical workflow that has direct applications for EEB. We start this commentary by defining four distinct analytical tasks (description, prediction, association, causal inference). The remainder of the text is dedicated to causal inference, specifically focusing on the use of DAGs to inform the modelling strategy. Given the increasing interest in causal inference and misperceptions regarding this task, we seek to facilitate an exchange of ideas between disciplinary silos and provide an analytical framework that is particularly relevant for making causal inference from observational data.more » « less
