A standard protocol for describing the evaluation of ecological models

• DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5886179
• Publication Date: 2022-01-21
• Authors: Planque, Benjamin; Aarflot, Johanna M.; Buttay, Lucie; Carroll, JoLynn; Fransner, Filippa; Hansen, Cecilie; Husson, Bérengère; Keenlyside, Noel; Langangen, Øystein; Lindstrøm, Ulf; Nilsen, Ina; Pedersen, Torstein; Primicerio, Raul; Sivel, Elliot; Skogen, Morten D.; Strombom, Evelyn; Stige, Leif Chris...; Varpe, Øystein; Yoccoz, Nigel G.
• Keywords: transparency; 13. Climate action; best practice; skill assessment; standardisation; ecological patterns

Numerical models of ecological systems are increasingly used by scientists to address complex environmental questions. One challenge for scientists, managers, and stakeholders is to appraise the performance of these models to answer specific questions of scientific or societal relevance, that is to perform, communicate or access transparent evaluations of ecological models. While there have been substantial developments to support standardised descriptions of ecological models, less has been done to standardise and to report model evaluation practices. We present here a general protocol designed to guide the reporting of model evaluation. The protocol is organised in three major parts: the objective(s) of the modelling application, the ecological patterns of relevance and the evaluation methodology proper, and is termed the OPE (objectives, patterns, evaluation) protocol. We present the 25 questions of the OPE protocol which address the many aspects of the evaluation process and then apply them to six case studies based on a diversity of ecological models. In addition to standardising and increasing the transparency of the model evaluation process, we find that going through the OPE protocol helps modellers to think more deeply about the evaluation of their models. From this last point, we suggest that it would be highly beneficial for modellers to consider the OPE early in the modelling process, in addition to using it as a reporting tool and as a reviewing tool.<br/>The published version of this article is available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110059<br/>