Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology

By J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch. 2014

374 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d88b609e40c10ad7c52770f382bb1b6bffba9d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Wild Edible Fruits: A Systematic Review of an Under-Researched Multifunctional NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Product) (2019, methodology): “A systematic map is distinct from a meta-analysis, where evidence is statistically analyzed to arrive at conclusions or hypotheses [49], or a systematic review with more specific questions that can employ the population-intervention-outcome-comparator approach [50].”
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018, neutral): “Statistically flawed procedures such as vote-counting 14 , a biased statistical technique that provides only limited information about study outcomes, have been long discredited but are still being employed in published papers.”
Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends (2018, background): “…control for heterogeneity among studies with di ﬀ ering purposes and designs, and fail to control for di ﬀ erences in the a priori expectations of studies being summarized (Hillebrand and Cardinale, 2010; Koricheva and Gurevitch, 2014; Nakagawa et al., 2017; Ridolo et al., 2017; Whittaker, 2010).”
Do native and invasive plants differ in their interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? A meta‐analysis (2015, background): “They are also the most common metric used for meta-analyses within plant ecology (Koricheva & Gurevitch 2014).”
On the link between functional traits and growth rate: meta‐analysis shows effects change with plant size, as predicted (2016, background): “Koricheva & Gurevitch (2014) outlined 14 methodological criteria to ensure robust results from meta-analyses.”
Meta-analysis and dose-response analysis of high temperature effects on rice yield and quality (2017, background): “A significant Qb implies that there are differences among cumulative effect sizes between groups (Fonturbel et al., 2015; Koricheva and Gurevitch, 2014).”
Consistent alleviation of abiotic stress with silicon addition: a meta-analysis. (2016, background): “994 995 Table S1: Description of how the criteria for meta-analyses in ecology (Koricheva & Gurevitch 2014) were addressed 996 in this study.”
A practical guide to question formation, systematic searching and study screening for literature reviews in ecology and evolution (2021, background): “Recent papers have highlighted a lack of reproducibility in the reporting and results of meta- analyses across fields (Davies et al., 2020; Jones & DuVal, 2019; Koricheva & Gurevitch, 2014; Lakens et al., 2017).”
Secondary invasion: The bane of weed management (2016, methodology): “Finally, we checked our metaanalysis against the quality criteria established by Koricheva and Gurevitch (2014) for ecological studies.”
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021, result): “…of results frommultiple studies is sometimes referred to as a ‘meta-analysis’ (including the common but inadvisable practice of tallying the number of significant versus non-significant results, i.e. ‘vote-counting’; Vetter et al., 2013; Koricheva & Gurevitch, 2014; Gurevitch et al., 2018).”