Meta‐Analysis and Systematic Reviews in Ecology

Research synthesis provides the methodological and statistical tools for the scientific integration of results of ecological research, and consists of methods and standards for systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews use scientific approaches for searching and selecting publications, and meta-analyses provide the statistical tools to quantitatively summarise study results. These tools can be used to synthesise the outcomes from many different kinds of ecological studies, including both experimental and observational studies taken from published literature, and the outcomes of studies conducted across different systems by coordinated research groups. Based on the rationale for such synthesis efforts, the article presents the types of effect sizes used as well as statistical analyses to test hypotheses. Key Concepts Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential for generalising the outcomes of ecological, conservation and evolutionary studies. Meta-analysis is the basis for evidence-based decisions and conclusions in conservation and fundamental ecology Systematic review is a set of scientific methods for searching, inclusion and reporting results in research syntheses. Meta-analysis provides the statistical methods for the quantitative synthesis of the results of different studies. Meta-analytic methods offer ways to model and account for heterogeneity in the outcomes of different studies Meta-analyses offer the potential to resolve apparent discrepancies in study results and to reconcile longstanding scientific controversies Meta-analysis has altered the way ecologists and evolutionary biologists develop general insights beyond the specific contexts of individual studies. Keywords: quantitative synthesis; meta-analysis; community ecology; effect sizes; statistical methods; review techniques

[1]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[2]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology , 2014 .

[3]  R. Gifford,et al.  Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis , 2002 .

[4]  C. Mantyka‐Pringle,et al.  Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2012 .

[5]  A. Pullin,et al.  Wild dog reintroductions in South Africa: A systematic review and cross-validation of an endangered species recovery programme , 2010 .

[6]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[7]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  A cross-system synthesis of consumer and nutrient resource control on producer biomass. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[8]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[9]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Sarah M. Gray,et al.  Biological invasions: a field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[11]  M. Navas,et al.  Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2 : on winners, losers and functional groups. , 2003, The New phytologist.

[12]  S. Francoeur.  Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[13]  G. Marion,et al.  A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming , 2001, Oecologia.

[14]  Gaku Kudo,et al.  Global assessment of experimental climate warming on tundra vegetation: heterogeneity over space and time. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[15]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[16]  R. Frankham,et al.  HOW CLOSELY CORRELATED ARE MOLECULAR AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF GENETIC VARIATION? A META‐ANALYSIS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  L. Hedges,et al.  Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. , 1980 .

[18]  M. Rosenberg,et al.  Phylogenetic Nonindependence and Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[19]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  The Interaction between Competition and Predation: A Meta‐analysis of Field Experiments , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  STATISTICAL ISSUES IN ECOLOGICAL META‐ANALYSES , 1999 .

[21]  J. Gurevitch,et al.  Meta-analysis results are unlikely to be biased by differences in variance and replication between ecological lab and field studies , 2014 .

[22]  A. Pullin,et al.  Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. , 2009 .

[23]  H. Rothstein,et al.  25. History and Progress of Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[24]  J. Sullivan,et al.  THE IMPACT OF HERBIVORY ON PLANTS IN DIFFERENT RESOURCE CONDITIONS: A META-ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[25]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  THE META‐ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATIOS IN EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY , 1999 .

[26]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  Effect Size in Ecological Experiments: The Application of Biological Models in Meta‐Analysis , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[27]  Göran Englund,et al.  The importance of data-selection criteria: meta-analyses of stream predation experiments , 1999 .

[28]  J. Lawton.  Are there general laws in ecology , 1999 .

[29]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  On the Generality of the Latitudinal Diversity Gradient , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[30]  Benjamin S Halpern,et al.  Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[31]  Marc J. Lajeunesse,et al.  On the meta-analysis of response ratios for studies with correlated and multi-group designs. , 2011 .

[32]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  A Latitudinal Gradient in Northeast Pacific Intertidal Community Structure: Evidence for an Oceanographically Based Synthesis of Marine Community Theory , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[33]  G. Glass.  Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1 , 1976 .

[34]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[35]  G. Arnqvist,et al.  Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[36]  Elizabeth T. Borer,et al.  A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades , 2002 .

[37]  K. Mengersen,et al.  11. Bayesian Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[38]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  7. Using Other Metrics of Effect Size in Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[39]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  RESOLVING ECOLOGICAL QUESTIONS THROUGH META‐ANALYSIS: GOALS, METRICS, AND MODELS , 1999 .

[40]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[41]  S. Schneider,et al.  Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants , 2003, Nature.

[42]  G. Mittelbach,et al.  Is There a Latitudinal Gradient in the Importance of Biotic Interactions , 2009 .

[43]  M. Forbes,et al.  Variable reporting and quantitative reviews: a comparison of three meta‐analytical techniques , 2003 .

[44]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[45]  H. Hillebrand.  Grazing regulates the spatial variability of periphyton biomass. , 2008, Ecology.

[46]  R. Denno,et al.  Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades , 2005 .

[47]  M. Lajeunesse.  13. Recovering Missing or Partial Data from Studies: A Survey of Conversions and Imputations for Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[48]  Dean C. Adams,et al.  RESAMPLING TESTS FOR META‐ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL DATA , 1997 .

[49]  M. Vilà,et al.  Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. , 2011, Ecology letters.