Meta‐analysis in Ecology

By H. Hillebrand. 2008

215 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e330c6d975f282515e44c7aead43620745c8dcfe

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

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Pollen Limitation in the Alpine: A Meta-Analysis (2009, background): “This approach does not account for the common ancestry of the species included in the analysis, resulting in a pseudoreplication bias if there is a phylogenetic signal in the data set (Gurevitch et al., 2001; Garland et al., 2005).”
Consistent alleviation of abiotic stress with silicon addition: a meta-analysis. (2016, background): “370 Meta-analyses should allow comparison between families, given sufficient samples sizes within 371 groupings, and if 95% confidence intervals among treatments do not overlap they can be considered 372 significantly different (Gurevitch et al. 2001).”
A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services (2013, methodology): “…would provide opportunities for meta-analyses so that where enough data have been collected for diverse environments, they could become a useful tool for taking into account better context specificity and management objectives when manipulating earthworms (Gurevitch et al ., 2001; Stewart, 2010).”
Meta‐analysis of variation: ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond (2015, background): “…value, is affected not only by the difference in the means of the two groups but also by spooled (Equation 3), so that the magnitudes of standard deviations of the two groups influence the comparative effect of treatments (cf. Osenberg, Sarnelle & Cooper 1997; see also Hillebrand 2008).”
Linking temperate demersal fish species to habitat: scales, patterns and future directions (2013, background): “This publication bias is , however , expected to operate equally across all studies and spatial scales ( Brett 1997 ) and therefore have little effect on our findings .”
Impacts of Dreissena invasions on benthic macroinvertebrate communities: a meta‐analysis (2007, methodology): “We attempted to avoid the ‘apples and oranges’ problem (Gurevitch et al., 2001) by only combining effects measured in the same units in any given analysis (e.g. we did not combine numerical and biomass densities).”
The interactive effects of plant microbial symbionts: a review and meta-analysis (2010, methodology): “Studies were integrated by weighting the mean effect size by the inverse of the individual study variance (Gurevitch et al. 2001), thereby decreasing the influence of studies with relatively large variances on the group mean.”
Reproducibility and Repeatability in Ecology (2006, background): “Progress toward such principles will thus be best served by the ability to repeat potentially important discoveries across different ecological systems (Gurevitch et al. 2001, Koricheva 2003).”
Basin‐Wide Effects of Game Harvest on Vertebrate Population Densities in Amazonian Forests: Implications for Animal‐Mediated Seed Dispersal (2007, methodology): “—Meta-analysis is a combined quantitative synthesis of multiple independent studies using a set of summary statistics from each study (Hedges & Olkin 1985, Gurevitch et al. 2001).”
Rhizosphere priming effect: A meta-analysis (2017, unknown): “Effect size for each data point was calculated as the natural log of the response ratio (RR) (Gurevitch et al., 2001): ln (RR) ¼ ln Xt Xc where Xt and Xc are the means of SOM derived CO2 efflux rate of the planted soil and the unplanted control, respectively.”
Plant–soil feedbacks of exotic plant species across life forms: a meta-analysis (2014, unknown): “A random model is 181 appropriate for ecological data as this takes heterogeneity between species into account 182 (Borenstein et al. 2009; Gurevitch et al. 2001).”
Effects of land management on the abundance and richness of spiders (Araneae): A meta-analysis (2011, methodology): “First, a vote counting approach (Gurevitch et al., 2001) was utilized to summarize the main results.”
Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (2012, background): “…considered an ideal framework within which to assess the accumulation of scientific evidence (Berman & Parker, 2002; Garg et al., 2008) in ecology (Gurevitch et al., 2001; Leimu & Koricheva, 2004; Luiselli, 2008) and in conservation biology (Ojeda-Martinez et al., 2007; Aronson et al., 2010;…”
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018, unknown): “Overall, however, introduction of meta-analysis in EEC has been enthusiastically embraced by majority of scientists in these disciplines with the number of meta-analyses published increasing exponentially 59,60 .”
Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits (2011, methodology): “Data were analyzed using random-effect models as it was assumed that, in addition to sampling error, there is a true random component of variation in effect sizes between studies (Gurevitch et al. 2001).”
The stress‐gradient hypothesis does not fit all relationships between plant–plant interactions and abiotic stress: further insights from arid environments (2006, background): “Whereas a thorough discussion on the power and robustness of meta-analysis is beyond the scope of this reply (for reviews see Arnqvist & Wooster 1995; Osenberg et al . 1999; Gurevitch et al . 2001 ), our reanalyses have shown that it is fully capable of detecting differences between the low and hig”