Many scientific disciplines are currently experiencing a 'reproducibility crisis' because numerous scientific findings cannot be repeated consistently. A novel but controversial hypothesis postulates that stringent levels of environmental and biotic standardization in experimental studies reduce reproducibility by amplifying the impacts of laboratory-specific environmental factors not accounted for in study designs. A corollary to this hypothesis is that a deliberate introduction of controlled systematic variability (CSV) in experimental designs may lead to increased reproducibility. To test this hypothesis, we had 14 European laboratories run a simple microcosm experiment using grass (Brachypodium distachyon L.) monocultures and grass and legume (Medicago truncatula Gaertn.) mixtures. Each laboratory introduced environmental and genotypic CSV within and among replicated microcosms established in either growth chambers (with stringent control of environmental conditions) or glasshouses (with more variable environmental conditions). The introduction of genotypic CSV led to 18% lower among-laboratory variability in growth chambers, indicating increased reproducibility, but had no significant effect in glasshouses where reproducibility was generally lower. Environmental CSV had little effect on reproducibility. Although there are multiple causes for the 'reproducibility crisis', deliberately including genetic variability may be a simple solution for increasing the reproducibility of ecological studies performed under stringently controlled environmental conditions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2021.
All research outputs
#958,956
of 34,329,868 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#1,258
of 2,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,783
of 518,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#59
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,329,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 131.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 518,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
