We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries. T he lack of reproducibility of scientific studies has caused growing concern over the credibility of claims of new discoveries based on 'statistically significant' findings. There has been much progress toward documenting and addressing several causes of this lack of reproducibility (for example, multiple testing, P-hacking, publication bias and under-powered studies). However, we believe that a leading cause of non-reproducibility has not yet been adequately addressed: statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of science are simply too low. Associating statistically significant findings with P < 0.05 results in a high rate of false positives even in the absence of other experimental, procedural and reporting problems.For fields where the threshold for defining statistical significance for new discoveries is P < 0.05, we propose a change to P < 0.005. This simple step would immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research in many fields. Results that would currently be called significant but do not meet the new threshold should instead be called suggestive. While statisticians have known the relative weakness of using P ≈ 0.05 as a threshold for discovery and the proposal to lower it to 0.005 is not new 1,2 , a critical mass of researchers now endorse this change.We restrict our recommendation to claims of discovery of new effects. We do not address the appropriate threshold for confirmatory or contradictory replications of existing claims. We also do not advocate changes to discovery thresholds in fields that have already adopted more stringent standards (for example, genomics and high-energy physics research; see the 'Potential objections' section below).We also restrict our recommendation to studies that conduct null hypothesis significance tests. We have diverse views about how best to improve reproducibility, and many of us believe that other ways of summarizing the data, such as Bayes factors or other posterior summaries based on clearly articulated model assumptions, are preferable to P values. However, changing the P value threshold is simple, aligns with the training undertaken by many researchers, and might quickly achieve broad acceptance.

An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world’s ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity

Summary 1.A primary goal of ecology is to understand the fundamental processes underlying the geographic distributions of species. Two major strands of ecology -habitat modelling and community ecology -approach this problem differently. Habitat modellers often use species distribution models (SDMs) to quantify the relationship between species' and their environments without considering potential biotic interactions. Community ecologists, on the other hand, tend to focus on biotic interactions and, in observational studies, use co-occurrence patterns to identify ecological processes. Here, we describe a joint species distribution model (JSDM) that integrates these distinct observational approaches by incorporating species co-occurrence data into a SDM. 2. JSDMs estimate distributions of multiple species simultaneously and allow decomposition of species co-occurrence patterns into components describing shared environmental responses and residual patterns of co-occurrence. We provide a general description of the model, a tutorial and code for fitting the model in R. We demonstrate this modelling approach using two case studies: frogs and eucalypt trees in Victoria, Australia. 3. Overall, shared environmental correlations were stronger than residual correlations for both frogs and eucalypts, but there were cases of strong residual correlation. Frog species generally had positive residual correlations, possibly due to the fact these species occurred in similar habitats that were not fully described by the environmental variables included in the JSDM. Eucalypt species that interbreed had similar environmental responses but had negative residual co-occurrence. One explanation is that interbreeding species may not form stable assemblages despite having similar environmental affinities. 4. Environmental and residual correlations estimated from JSDMs can help indicate whether co-occurrence is driven by shared environmental responses or other ecological or evolutionary process (e.g. biotic interactions), or if important predictor variables are missing. JSDMs take into account the fact that distributions of species might be related to each other and thus overcome a major limitation of modelling species distributions independently.

Species distribution models (SDMs) are used to inform a range of ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications. However, users often underestimate the strong links between data type, model output and suitability for end-use. We synthesize current knowledge and provide a simple framework that summarizes how interactions between data type and the sampling process (i.e. imperfect detection and sampling bias) determine the quantity that is estimated by a SDM. We then draw upon the published literature and simulations to illustrate and evaluate the information needs of the most common ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications of SDM outputs. We find that, while predictions of models fitted to the most commonly available observational data (presence records) suffice for some applications, others require estimates of occurrence probabilities, which are unattainable without reliable absence records. Our literature review and simulations reveal that, while converting continuous SDM outputs into categories of assumed presence or absence is common practice, it is seldom clearly justified by the application's objective and it usually degrades inference. Matching SDMs to the needs of particular applications is critical to avoid poor scientific inference and management outcomes. This paper aims to help modellers and users assess whether their intended SDM outputs are indeed fit for purpose.