Analyzing cause and effect in environmental assessments: using weighted evidence from the literature

Abstract

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Will environmental flows increase the abundance of native riparian vegetation on lowland rivers? A systematic review protocol

“…When assessing the strength of causal inference from a systematic review, it is implicit that the results should be assessed against the causal criteria [24]. Our review will be conducted using Eco Evidence a , a freely available method [25] and software [26], which was recently developed to facilitate causal criteria analysis in environmental science, by employing the literature as a source of evidence. It is currently the only method for systematic review in environmental science supported by software.…”

“…It is currently the only method for systematic review in environmental science supported by software. The history and logic behind causal criteria generally, and the Eco Evidence framework specifically, are described in detail elsewhere [25,27,28]. Eco Evidence is philosophically aligned with existing methods of systematic review [24], and has several advantages over the methods used for most reviews in ecology, which normally only attempt some sort of narrative summary of the literature [29].…”

Age determination in common carp Cyprinus carpio: history, relative utility of ageing structures, precision and accuracy

“…one for each ageing structure evaluated) of successful annulus identification/counting on the structure used; in step 5, the evidence provided in support consisted of the reviewed comparative studies; and in step 7 (note that step 6 was not necessary), given that the framework was originally designed for the evaluation of 'natural experiments' for the monitoring of ecological impacts, a 'best-match' approach was employed. To this end, following the weigthing system of Norris et al (2012), for those studies that assessed the utility of a specific structure relative to other reference structure(s), a 'reference/control versus impact (no before)' design was matched that provides a weight of 2, with one control structure contributing an additional weight of 2, more than one control structure a weight of 3, and with the reference structure (only one in all cases) providing a weight of 0. Whereas, for those studies that evaluated a suite of structures simultaneously, a 'gradient response model' design was matched that Table 1 Steps in the Eco Evidence causal criteria analysis framework (after Norris et al 2012 andWebb et al 2013) provides a weight of 0, with up to three structures contributing also a weight of 0, four structures a weight of 2, and five structures a weight of 4.…”

“…To this end, following the weigthing system of Norris et al (2012), for those studies that assessed the utility of a specific structure relative to other reference structure(s), a 'reference/control versus impact (no before)' design was matched that provides a weight of 2, with one control structure contributing an additional weight of 2, more than one control structure a weight of 3, and with the reference structure (only one in all cases) providing a weight of 0. Whereas, for those studies that evaluated a suite of structures simultaneously, a 'gradient response model' design was matched that Table 1 Steps in the Eco Evidence causal criteria analysis framework (after Norris et al 2012 andWebb et al 2013) provides a weight of 0, with up to three structures contributing also a weight of 0, four structures a weight of 2, and five structures a weight of 4. The desktop Eco Evidence v1.1.1 analyser software (Nichols et al 2011) was used for implementation of causal criteria analysis.…”

“…For each of the seven structure-related hypotheses, the resulting weights were then summed for all evidence in favour of the hypothesis and for all evidence against the hypothesis. Following Norris et al (2012), the sums were then compared to a threshold value of 20 points, which has proven satisfactory in previous applications of the methodology (Webb et al 2013;. This resulted in one of four conclusions for each hypothesis (i.e.…”