Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 8;10(3):1098-1105.
doi: 10.1002/ece3.5970. eCollection 2020 Feb.

A checklist for choosing between R packages in ecology and evolution

Affiliations

A checklist for choosing between R packages in ecology and evolution

Christopher J Lortie et al. Ecol Evol. .

Abstract

The open source and free programming language R is a phenomenal mechanism to address a multiplicity of challenges in ecology and evolution. It is also a complex ecosystem because of the diversity of solutions available to the analyst.Packages for R enhance and specialize the capacity to explore both niche data/experiments and more common needs. However, the paradox of choice or how we select between many seemingly similar options can be overwhelming and lead to different potential outcomes.There is extensive choice in ecology and evolution between packages for both fundamental statistics and for more specialized domain-level analyses.Here, we provide a checklist to inform these decisions based on the principles of resilience, need, and integration with scientific workflows for evidence.It is important to explore choices in any analytical coding environment-not just R-for solutions to challenges in ecology and evolution, and document this process because it advances reproducible science, promotes a deeper understand of the scientific evidence, and ensures that the outcomes are correct, representative, and robust.

Keywords: R programming language; checklist; guidelines; heuristic; open source; paradox of choice; reproducible science; statistical methods; tools.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The number of R packages for common statistical and ecological/evolutionary concepts. The estimates for each term were generated using the R package “packagefinder” to search CRAN directly from the R console. The minimum number of packages returned was 3, and the maximum was 2,876 effective July 2019

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Berkeley, D. , & Humphreys, P. (1982). Structuring decision problems and the ‘bias heuristic’. Acta Psychologica, 50, 201–252. 10.1016/0001-6918(82)90042-7 - DOI
    1. Bolker, B. M. , Brooks, M. E. , Clark, C. J. , Geange, S. W. , Poulsen, J. R. , Stevens, M. H. H. , & White, J.‐S.‐S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 127–135. 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bornmann, L. , de Moya Anegón, F. , & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS ONE, 5, e13327 10.1371/journal.pone.0013327 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cadotte, M. W. , Mehrkens, L. R. , & Menge, D. N. L. (2012). Gauging the impact of meta‐analysis on ecology. Evolutionary Ecology, 26, 1153–1167. 10.1007/s10682-012-9585-z - DOI
    1. Colapinto, C. , Jayaraman, R. , & Marsiglio, S. (2017). Multi‐criteria decision analysis with goal programming in engineering, management and social sciences: A state‐of‐the art review. Annals of Operations Research, 251, 7–40. 10.1007/s10479-015-1829-1 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources