, Volume 137, Issue 2, pp 161–170

How much variance is explained by ecologists? Additional perspectives

  • Michael S. Peek
  • A. Joshua Leffler
  • Stephan D. Flint
  • Ronald J. Ryel


A recent meta-analysis of meta-analyses by Møller and Jennions (2002, Oecologia 132:492–500) suggested that ecologists using statistical models are explaining between 2.5% and 5.42% of the variability in ecological studies. Although we agree that there is considerable variability in ecological systems that is not explained, we disagree with the approach and general conclusions of Møller and Jennions. As an alternate perspective, we explored the question: "How much ecological variation in relationships is not explained?" We did this by examining published studies in five different journals representative of the numerous sub-disciplines of ecology. We quantified the proportion of variance not explained in statistical models as the residual or random error compared to the total variation in the data set. Our results indicate that statistical models explain roughly half of the variation in variables of interest, vastly different from the 2.5%–5.42% reported by Møller and Jennions. This difference resulted largely from a different level of analysis: we considered the original study to be the appropriate level for quantifying variability while Møller and Jennions combined studies at different temporal and spatial scales and attempted to find universal single-factor relationships between ecological variables across study organisms or locations. Therefore, we believe that Møller and Jennions actually measured the universality of single factor effects across multiple ecological systems, not the amount of variability in ecological studies explained by ecologists. This study, combined with Møller and Jennions', illustrates importance of applying statistical models appropriately to assess ecological relationships.


Eta squared Meta-analysis Random error Statistical models Variance explained 


  1. Arnqvist G, Wooster D (1995) Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brett MT, Goldman G (1996) A meta-analysis of the freshwater trophic cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:7723–7726PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JH (1999) Macroecology: progress and prospect. Oikos 87:3–14Google Scholar
  4. Cooper HM, Hedges LV (1993) Handbook of research synthesis. Russel Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis PS, Wang X (1998) A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass, form, and physiology. Oecologia 113:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher RA (1928) The general sampling distribution of the multiple correlation coefficient. Proc R Soc A 121:654–673Google Scholar
  7. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32:199–247Google Scholar
  9. Hilborn R, Mangel M (1997) The ecological detective, confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  10. Järvinen A (1991) A meta-analytic study of the effects of female age on laying-date and clutch-size in the Great Tit (Parus major) and the Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). Ibis 133:62–67Google Scholar
  11. Mangel M, Fiksen O, Giske J (2001) Theoretical and statistical models in natural resource management and research. In: Shenk TM, Franklin AB (eds) Modeling in natural resource management. Development, interpretation, and application. Island, Washington, D.C., pp 57–72Google Scholar
  12. Maurer BA (1999) Untangling ecological complexity: the macroscopic perspective. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2002) How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132:492–500Google Scholar
  14. Osenberg CW, Mittelbach GG (1989) The effects of body size on the predator-prey interaction between pumpkinseed sunfish and gastropods. Ecol Monogr 59:405–432Google Scholar
  15. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117Google Scholar
  16. Pearson K (1911) On a correction to be made to the correlation ratio η. Biometrika 8:254–256Google Scholar
  17. Romme WH, Everham EH, Frelich LE, Moritz MA, Sparks RE (1998) Are large, infrequent disturbances qualitatively different from small, frequent disturbances? Ecosystems 1:524–534Google Scholar
  18. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1983) Using multivariate statistics. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Thornhill R, Møller RA (1998) The relative importance of size and asymmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Xiong S, Nilsson C (1999) The effect of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 87:984–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Peek
    • 1
  • A. Joshua Leffler
    • 1
  • Stephan D. Flint
    • 1
  • Ronald J. Ryel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife Sciences and the Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations