Back

Three species, three labs, three experiments: testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behaviour in a multi-laboratory setting

Mundinger, C.; Schulz, N. K. E.; Singh, P.; Janz, S.; Schurig, M.; Seidemann, J.; Kurtz, J.; Muller, C.; Schielzeth, H.; von Kortzfleisch, V. T.; Richter, S. H.

2025-01-16 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2025.01.16.633334 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The reproducibility of studies involving insect species is an underexplored area in the broader discussion about poor reproducibility in science. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic multi-laboratory investigation into the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behaviour. We implemented a 3x3 experimental design, incorporating three study sites, and three independent experiments on three insect species from different orders: the turnip sawfly (Athalia rosae, Hymenoptera), the meadow grasshopper (Pseudochorthippus parallelus, Orthoptera) and the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum, Coleoptera). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we compared the consistency and accuracy of treatment effects on insect behavioural traits across replicate experiments. We successfully reproduced the overall statistical treatment effect in 83% of the replicate experiments, but overall effect size replication was achieved in only 66% of the replicates. Thus, though demonstrating sufficient reproducibility in some measures, this study also provides first experimental evidence for cases of poor reproducibility in insect experiments. Our findings further show that reasons causing poor reproducibility established in rodent research also hold for other study organisms and research questions. We believe that a rethinking of current best practices is required to face reproducibility issues in insect studies, but also across disciplines. Specifically, we advocate for adopting open research practices and the implementation of methodological strategies that reduce bias and problems arising from over-standardization. With respect to the latter, the introduction of systematic variation through multi-laboratory or heterogenized designs may contribute to improved reproducibility in studies involving any living organisms.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.