Compromises in data selection in a meta-analysis of biodiversity in managed and unmanaged forests: response to Halme et al.

Conservation Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1157-1160

  Paillet, Yoan ^a,b   Bergès, Laurent ^a   Hjältén, Joakim ^c   Ódor, Péter ^d   Avon, Catherine ^a   Bernhardt Römermann, Markus ^e   Bijlsma, Rienk Jan ^f   De Bruyn, Luc ^g,h   Fuhr, Marc ^b   Grandin, Ulf ^c   Kanka, Robert ⁱ   Lundin, Lars ^c   Luque, Sandra ^b   Magura, Tibor ^j   Matesanz, Silvia ^k   Mészáros, Ilona ^l   Sebastià, M Teresa ^m,n   Schmidt, Wolfgang ^e   Standovár, Tibor ^d   Tóthmérész, Béla ^l   Uotila, Anneli ^o   Valladares, Fernando ^k   Vellak, Kai ^p   Virtanen, Risto ^q   more..

^a Cemagref   (France)

^b Cemagref   (France)

^c SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^d EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^f WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

^h UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

ⁱ INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY   (Slovakia)

^j UNIV OF HORT AND FOOD INDUSTRY   (Hungary)

^k CSIC   (Spain)

^l UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN   (Hungary)

^m CENTRE TECNOLÒGIC FORESTAL DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF LLEIDA   (Spain)

^o UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^p UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^q UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; DATA SET; FOREST MANAGEMENT; META-ANALYSIS; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EUROPE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; TREE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; EUROPE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREES;

EID: 77954709163     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01543.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Gurevitch J, Hedges L V. Meta-analysis. Combining the results of independent experiments. Design and analysis of ecological experiments 2001, 347-369. Scheiner S M, Gurevitch J. Pages, editors, Oxford University Press, New York
2. Halme P, Toivanen T, Honkanen M, Kotiaho J S, Monkkonen M, Timonen J. Flawed Meta-Analysis of Biodiversity Effects of Forest Management. Conservation Biology 2010, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01542.x, doi
3. Hurlbert S H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 1984, 54:187-211.
4. Hurlbert S H. The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. Journal of Comparative Psychology 2009, 123:434-443.
5. Koehnle T J, Schank J C. An ancient black art. Journal of Comparative Psychology 2009, 123:452-458.
6. Oksanen L. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue?. Oikos 2001, 94:27-38.
7. Oksanen L. The devil lies in details: reply to Stuart Hurlbert. Oikos 2004, 104:598-605.
8. Paillet Y. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:101-112.
9. Rosenberg M S, Adams D C, Gurevitch J. Metawin: statistical software for meta-analysis 2000, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
10. Schank J C, Koehnle T J. Pseudoreplication is a Pseudoproblem. Journal of Comparative Psychology 2009, 123:421-433.
11. Sippola A L, Siitonen J, Punttila P. Beetle diversity in timberline forests: a comparison between old-growth and regeneration areas in Finnish Lapland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 2002, 39:69-86.
12. Underwood A J. Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance 1997, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom