Using Biological Insight and Pragmatism When Thinking about Pseudoreplication

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 28-35

  Colegrave, Nick ^a   Ruxton, Graeme D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

experimental design; independence of data points; model selection; multilevel analyses; replication; sampling

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; RESEARCH WORK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING;

ECOLOGY; EVOLUTION; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION;

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; ECOLOGY; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85033235556     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.007     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Hurlbert, S.H., Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54 (1984), 187–211.
2. Oksannen, L., Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue?. Oikos 94 (2001), 27–38.
3. Schank, J.C., Koehnle, T.J., Pseudoreplication is a pseudoproblem. J. Comp. Physiol. 123 (2009), 421–433.
4. Davies, G.M., Gray, A., Don't let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). Ecol. Evol. 5 (2015), 5295–5304.
5. Forstmeier, W., et al. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings – a practical guide. Biol. Rev. 92 (2016), 1941–1968.
6. Cottenie, K., De Meester, L., Comment to Oksanen (2001): reconciling Oksanen (2001) and Hurlbert (1984). Oikos 100 (2003), 394–396.
7. Hurlbert, S.H., On the misinterpretation of pseudoreplication and related matters: a reply to Oksanen. Oikos 104 (2004), 591–597.
8. Oksannen, L., The devil lies in details: reply to Stuart Hurlbert. Oikos 104 (2004), 598–605.
9. Hargrove, W.W., Pickering, J., Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 6 (1992), 251–258.
10. Hurlbert, S.H., The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. J. Comp. Psychol. 124 (1990), 434–443.
11. Aarts, E., et al. A solution to dependency: using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nat. Neurosci. 17 (2014), 491–496.
12. Murtaugh, P.M., Simplicity and complexity in ecological data analysis. Ecology 88 (2007), 56–62.
13. Krzywinski, M., et al. Points of significance: nested designs. Nat. Methods 11 (2014), 977–978.
14. Colegrave, N., Ruxton, G.D., Statistical model specification and power: recommendations on the use of test-qualified pooling in analysis of experimental data. Proc. Biol. Sci., 284, 2017 20161850.
15. Hurlbert, S.H. (2013) Review of Biometry, 4th edn, by R.R. Sokal & F.J. Rohlf. Limnol. Oceanogr. Bull. 22, 62–65.
16. Lazic, S.E., The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis?. BMC Neurosci., 11, 2010, 5.
17. Festing, M.F.W., et al. The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the, Use of Animals in Research through Better Experimental Design. 1st edn Laboratory Animal Handbooks, Vol. 1, 2002, Royal Society of Medicine Press.
18. Sokal, R.R., Rolf, F.J., Biometry. 4th edn, 2012, W.H. Freeman.