Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Figure 1 - Survey composition

Partitioning of the respondents with respect to (a) background (i.e. discipline of undergraduate studies), (b) geographic origin, (c) gender, and (d) employment status/level.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-1

Figure 2 - Distribution of variables quantifying attitudes towards mathematics

(a) Distribution of “Feeling” variable (from 1:”really dislike” mathematics to 5:”really like”) and (b) Distribution of “Modeler” variable (1:”do not model” to 5:”specialist modeler”). See Fig. S2 for correlation between these two variables.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-2

Figure 3 - Relative frequency of the uses of mathematics and association between categories.

Most respondents use mathematics primarily for statistics (S), and some other for statistics+theory (S+T, 26%), and the remaining 11% for statistics+decision making (S+D) and 10% for statistics+theory+decision making (S+T+D). Pure theoreticians (T) are therefore negligible in the sample.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-3

Figure 4 - Importance of involvement in modeling on the understanding of mathematical models.

The "Modeler” score goes from 1 (do not use models, on the left) to 5 (only use models, on the right). Red color is associated to dissatisfaction with mathematical understanding and blue satisfaction.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-4

Figure 5 - Frequency distribution of the desired percentage of mathematics, statistics and programming (in the ecological curriculum).

(a): with respect to involvement in modeling (“Modeler” score, 1: no modeling to 5:specialist); (b): with respect to status / employment level.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-5

Supplementary Information

Appendix 1 (questionnaire) and Supplementary Figures S1 to S5

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v2/supp-6

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Frédéric Barraquand conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper.

Thomas H G Ezard conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper.

Peter S Joergensen conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Naupaka Zimmerman conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Scott A Chamberlain conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Roberto Salguero-Gómez conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Timothy J Curran conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Timothée Poisot conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, wrote the paper.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The questionnaire was anonymous and voluntary, no identifying questions needing justification were asked.

Grant Disclosures

The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:

THGE is funded by NERC Fellowship NE/J018163/1.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of related data:

FigShare [data will be deposited just before publication]

Funding

FB was funded by EU Biodiversa Project Ecocycles, THGE by NERC Fellowship NE/J018163/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Feedback on other revisions


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies