In the dragon's den: A response to the meta-analysis forum contributions

Ecology

Volumn 91, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 2568-2571

  Whittaker, Robert J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA QUALITY; DATA SET; DEN; ECOSYSTEM MODELING; META-ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RESEARCH; STANDARD;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RESEARCH;

EID: 77956601590     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/09-1650.1     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Beadle, N. C. W. 1966. Soil phosphate and its role in molding segments of the Australian flora and vegetation, with special reference to xeromorphy and sclerophylly. Ecology 47:992-1007.
2. Chase, J. M., and M. A. Leibold. 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416: 427-430.
3. Ellison, A. M. 2010. Repeatability and transparency in ecological research. Ecology 91: 2536-2539.
4. Englund, G., O. Sarnell, and S. D. Cooper. 1999. The importance of data-selection criteria: meta-analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80: 1132-1141.
5. Gates, S. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 547-557.
6. Gillman, L. N., and S. D. Wright. 2006. The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: a critical assessment. Ecology 87: 1234-1243.
7. Gillman, L. N., and S. D. Wright. 2010. Mega mistakes in meta-analyses: devil in the detail. Ecology 91: 2550-2552.
8. Gurevitch, J., and K. Mengersen, 2010. A statistical view of synthesizing patterns of species richness along productivity gradients: devils, forests, and trees. Ecology 91: 2553-2560.
9. Hillebrand, H., and B. J. Cardinale. 2010. A critique for metaanalyses and the productivity-diversity relationship. Ecology 91:2545-2549.
10. Huston, M. A., and S. Wolverton. 2009. The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox. Ecological Monographs 79: 343-377.
11. Laanisto, L., P. Urbas, and M. Pärtel. 2008. Why does the unimodal species richness-productivity relationship not apply to woody species: a lack of clonality or a legacy of tropical evolutionary history? Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 320-326.
12. Lajeunesse, M. J. 2010. Achieving synthesis with meta-analysis by combining and comparing all available studies. Ecology 91: 2561-2564.
13. Mittelbach, G. G. 2010. Understanding species richnessproductivity relationships: the importance of meta-analyses. Ecology 91: 2540-2544.
14. Mittelbach, G. G., C. F. Steiner, S. M. Scheiner, K. L. Gross, H. L. Reynolds, R. B. Waide, M. R. Willig, S. I. Dodson, and L. Gough. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82: 2381-2396.
15. Oberle, B., J. B. Grace, and J. M. Chase. 2009. Beneath the veil: plant growth form influences the strength of species richnessproductivity relationships in forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18: 416-425.
16. Partei, M., L. Laanisto, and M. Zobel. 2007. Contrasting plant productivity-diversity relationships across latitude: the role of evolutionary history. Ecology 88: 1091-1097.
17. Partei, M., K. Zobel, L. Laanisto, R. Szava-Kovats, and M. Zobel. 2010. The productivity-diversity relationship: varying aims and approaches. Ecology 91: 2565-2567.
18. Wheeler, B. D., and S. C. Shaw. 1991. Above-ground crop mass and species richness of the principal types of herbaceous richfen vegetation of lowland England and Wales. Journal of Ecology 79: 285-301.
19. Whittaker, R. J. 2010. Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis of the species richnessproductivity relationship. Ecology 91: 2522-2533.
20. Whittaker, R. J., and E. Heegaard. 2003. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Comment. Ecology 84: 3384-3390.