Jump to main content.


Step 3: Evaluate Data from the Case

 This image is a drawing of a caddisfly larva in its case. Caddisflies are aquatic insects that are used by biologists to monitor the environmental quality of streams.


3.2.7. Temporal Sequence

Concept
The cause must precede the biological effect.

Figure 3-9a. Temporal Sequence, Supports.
Figure 3-9a. Temporal Sequence, Supports. The impairment (dead fish) occurred only after initiation of the candidate causal agent (the effluent).
(General explanation of symbols)
Figure 3-9b. Temporal Sequence, Refutes.
Figure 3-9b. Temporal Sequence, Refutes. The impairment (dead fish) occurred before the candidate causal agent (the effluent).

Examples
Consider reduced water flow as a candidate cause of low benthic macroinvertebrate species richness. What findings support or weaken the case for reduced water flow as the cause, based on temporal sequence?

How do I analyze the data?
Temporal sequence evidence is uncommon, because it usually depends upon data collected over relatively long time scales, often before an observed impairment suggests when and where data should be collected. Only measurements of the candidate causal agent (i.e., the proximate stressor) should be used to evaluate temporal sequence: surrogates or measurements of other steps in the causal pathway are considered under other types of evidence. Statistical tests should be interpreted with caution.

Evidence of temporal sequence should be evaluated cautiously if multiple sufficient causes may be present, as well as when the objective of the analysis is to identify all contributing causes rather than the most likely cause first. Under these circumstances, candidate causes occurring early in the time sequence may mask the effects of candidate causes occurring later, even though those candidates may contribute to the observed effects.

What evidence would support or weaken the case for a candidate cause?
Supports

Weakens

Refutes

How do I score the evidence?

FindingInterpretationScore
The candidate cause occurred prior to the effect. This finding somewhat supports the case for the candidate cause, but is not strongly supportive because the association could be coincidental. +
The temporal relationship between the candidate cause and the effect is uncertain. This finding neither supports nor weakens the case for the candidate cause, because the evidence is ambiguous. 0
The candidate cause occurs after the effect. This finding convincingly weakens the case for the candidate cause, because causes cannot precede effects (note that this should be evaluated with caution when multiple sufficient causes are present). - - -
The candidate cause occurs after the effect, and the evidence is indisputable. This finding refutes the case for the candidate cause, because effects cannot precede causes. R

Helpful tips


Evaluate Data from the Case: In-Depth Look | Evaluate Data from Elsewhere: In-Depth Look | Step-by-Step Guide Home Page


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.