Journal of Rubber Research

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 273–286 | Cite as

Application of Meta-Analysis to Yield Performance of Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) Clones

  • T. R. ChandrasekharEmail author


In Hevea, so far no attempt has been made to conduct a meta-analysis on yield performance of clones from many studies. With the objective to demonstrate the application of meta-analysis in Hevea research, yield performance of twelve clones repeated across many trials were subjected to meta-analysis. Two effect-size measures namely Standardised mean difference as Hedge’s g and log response ratio were used for combining results. Standardised mean difference in different studies ranged from −3.76 to 6.83. Random effect mean standardised mean difference in GT1 was 0.38. All the standardised mean difference values in RR1M 600 were negative. In clones RRII203, PB 235, PB 260, PB 217 and PB 311, standardised mean difference values were all positive while in other clones they were mostly negative. Random effect model mean standardised mean difference’s were significantly higher in clones RRII 203 and PB 235. In effect sizes, the percentage change in yield of GT 1 over RRII 105 ranged from negative 13 percent to positive 39 percent.

Among eight studies, four studies gave positive while the other four gave negative change in yield over the control RRII 105. Random effect overall yield was about 10 percent. In RRII 600, all the six studies produced negative change in yield. RRII 203 and PB 235 produced significantly higher yield over RRII 105 with percentage increases of about 20 and 36 percent respectively. Among the other clones, PB 260 produced a significantly higher yield of about 22 percent. Clear general patterns were identified in yield performance of treatment clones over the control. Clones RRII 203, PB 235 and PB 260 showed clear superiority in yield performance. Results of clones PB 217 and PB 311 indicated that further testing needs to be undertaken for taking a clear stand on the usefulness of these clones for the region. Comparison of standardised mean difference and the log response ratio effect size indices indicated that the log response ratio maybe more informative for quantifying the treatment effect in meta-analytic studies with Hevea brasiliensis.


Natural rubber Hevea braseliensis meta-analysis yield performance effect size standardised mean difference log ratio of means random effect mean heterogeneity continuous data 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    SIMMONDS, N.W. (1979) Principles of Crop Improvement. England: Longman Scientific and Technical, 408.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SIMMONDS N.W. (1989) Rubber Breeding. In: Rubber. (C.C. Webster and W.J. Baulkwill eds.). England: Longman Scientific and Technical, 85–124.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    VARGHESE, Y.A. AND MYDIN, K.K. (2000) Genetic Improvement. In: Natural Rubber, Agromanagement and Crop Processing (P.J. George, and C.K. Jacob, eds.) Kottayam: RRII, 36–46.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    LIPSEY, M.W. AND WILSON, D (2000) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 264.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    BORENSTEIN, M., HEDGES, L.V., HIGGINS, J.P.T. AND ROTHSTEIN, H.R. (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. England: John Wiley & Sons, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    COOPER H.M. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 280.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    HIGGINS, J.P.T. AND GREEN, S. (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. URL: Accessed in April 2016.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    KORICHEVA, J., GUREVITCH, J. AND MENGERSEN, K. (2013) Handbook of metaanalysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BURNS, R.B. AND BURNS, R.A. (2008) Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Additional advanced chapters: Chapter 22 — Meta-Analysis. URL Accessed in March 2016.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    GUREVITCH, J. AND HEDGES, L.V. (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology, 80, 1142–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    KELLEY, G.A. AND KELLEY, K.S. (2012) Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial. World Journal of Methodology, 2(4), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    FRIEDRICH, J.O., ADHIKARI, N.K. AND BEYENE, J. (2008) The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-analysis: a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    HEDGES, L.V. (1981) Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics. 6(2), 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    HEDGES, L.V. AND OLKIN, I. (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando: Academic Press, 378.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OSENBERG, C.W., SARNELLE, O., COOPER, S.D. AND HOLT, R.D. (1999) Resolving ecological questions through metaanalysis: Goals, metrics, and models. Ecology, 80, 1105–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    HEDGES, L.V., GUREVITCH, J. AND CURTIS. P.S. (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80, 1150–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    HIGGINS, J.P.T., THOMPSON, S.G. AND SPIEGELHALTER, D.J. (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 172(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R CORE TEAM. (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL Accessed in March 2016.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    VIECHTBAUER, W. (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the ‘metafor’ package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. URL Accessed in March 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    COOPER, H., HEDGES, L.V. AND VALENTINE, J.C. (2009) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd Edn. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 610.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ARNQVIST, G. AND WOOSTER, D. (1995) Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    COHEN, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge Academic, 579.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ELLIS, P.D. (2010) The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    THOMPSON, B. (2007) Effect sizes, confidence intervals and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    HIGGINS, J.P.T. AND THOMPSON, S.G. (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a metaanalysis. Statistical Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OSENBERG, C.W., SARNELLE, O AND COOPER, S.D. (1997) Effect size in ecological experiments: the application of biological models to meta-analysis. American Naturalist, 150, 798–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Malaysian Rubber Board 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rubber Research Institute of IndiaHevea Breeding Sub Station KadabaDK District KarnatakaIndia

Personalised recommendations