Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1153–1167 | Cite as

Gauging the impact of meta-analysis on ecology

  • Marc W. Cadotte
  • Lea R. Mehrkens
  • Duncan N. L. Menge
Original Paper

Abstract

Meta-analyses are an increasingly used set of statistical tools that allow for data from multiple studies to be drawn together allowing broader, more generalizable conclusions. The extent to which the increase in the number of meta-analyses in ecology, relative to other types of papers, has influenced how questions are asked and the current state of knowledge has not been assessed before. Here, we gauge the impact of meta-analyses in ecology quantitatively and qualitatively. For the quantitative assessment, we conducted an analysis of 240 published meta-analyses to examine trends in ecological meta-analyses. Our examination shows that publication rates of meta-analyses in ecology have increased through time, and that more recent meta-analyses have been more comprehensive, including more studies and a greater temporal range of studies. Meta-analyses in ecology are the result of larger collaborations with meta-analyses being authored by larger teams than other studies, and those funded by collaborative centers have even larger collaborations. These larger collaborations result in a larger scope and scale of the analyses—by using more papers, datasets, species and years of data. Qualitatively, we discuss three examples: the strength of competition, the nature of how biodiversity affects ecosystem function, and the response of species to global climate change, where meta-analyses supplied the critical evaluation of accepted ecological explanations. As scientific criticism and controversy mount, the true power of meta-analyses is to serve as the capstone evidence supporting the validity of an explanation and to possibly herald the shift to other potential explanations.

Keywords

Biodiversity Collaboration Competition Debate Ecosystem function Hypothesis testing 

Supplementary material

10682_2012_9585_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)
10682_2012_9585_MOESM2_ESM.txt (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TXT 22 kb)

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1997) High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80:183–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Wooster D (1995) Metaanalysis—synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:236–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9:1146–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell G (2001) Neutral macroecology. Science 293:2143–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broecker WS (1975) Climatic change: are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming? Science 189:460–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown WL Jr, Wilson EO (1956) Character displacement. Syst Zool 5:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadotte MW, Cavender-Bares J, Tilman D, Oakley TH (2009) Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS One 4:e5695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardinale BJ (2011) Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 472:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA (2002) Disturbance moderates biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships: experimental evidence from caddisflies in stream mesocosms. Ecology 83:1915–1927Google Scholar
  10. Cardinale BJ, Ives AR, Ichausti P (2004) Effects of species diversity on the primary productivity of ecosystems: extending our spatial and temporal scales of inference. Oikos 104:437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, Sankaran M, Jouseau C (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter SR, Armbrust EV, Arzberger PW, Chapin FS, Elser JJ, Hackett EJ, Ives AR, Kareiva PM, Leibold MA, Lundberg P, Mangel M, Merchant N, Murdoch WW, Palmer MA, Peters DPC, Pickett STA, Smith KK, Wall DH, Zimmerman AS (2009) Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. Bioscience 59:699–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll I, Cardinale B, Nisbet R (2011) Niche and fitness differences relate the maintenance of diversity to ecosystem function. Ecology 92:1157–1165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell JH (1961) Influence of interspecific competition and other factors on distribution of barnacle chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition—evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connor EF, Simberloff D (1979) The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60:1132–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connor EF, Simberloff D (1983) Interspecific competition and species co-occurrence patterns on islands: null models and the evaluation of evidence. Oikos 41:455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connor EF, Simberloff D (1984) Neutral models of species co-occurrence patterns. In: Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle A (eds) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 341–343Google Scholar
  19. Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diamond JM (1975) Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Drake BG, GonzalezMeler MA, Long SP (1997) More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:609–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, Palmer MI, Naeem S (2011) Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships. Ecology 1573–1581Google Scholar
  23. Fox JW, Harpole WS (2008) Revealing how species loss affects ecosystem function: the trait-based price equation partition. Ecology 89:269–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franklin JF, Bledsoe CS, Callahan JT (1990) Contributions of the long-term ecological research-program - an expanded network of scientists, sites, and programs can provide crucial comparative analyses. Bioscience 40:509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Hafner Publishing Company, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilpin ME, Diamond JM (1984) Are species co-occurrences on islands non-random, and are null hypotheses useful in community ecology? In: Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle A (eds) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gross CL (2005) A comparison of the sexual systems in the trees from the Australian tropics with other tropical biomes—more monoecy but why? Am J Bot 92:907–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (2001) Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 347–369Google Scholar
  29. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A metaanalysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gurevitch J, Morrison JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155:435–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32(32):199–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hackett E, Parker J (2010) Leadership in scientific research groups. In: 4S Annual meeting, University of Tokyo, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  33. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Success in synthesis. Bioscience 61:900–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448:188–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Korner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze ED, Siamantziouras ASD, Spehn EM, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Gribbs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography, vol 32. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  41. Huston M (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huston M, Aarssen LW, Austin MP, Cade BS, Fridley JD, Garnier E, Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Lauenroth WK, Thompson K, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2000) No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity. Science 289:1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hutchinson GE (1967) A treatise on limnology, vol 2. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones MB, Schildhauer MP, Reichman OJ, Bowers S (2006) The new bioinformatics: integrating ecological data from the gene to the biosphere. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:519–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karst J, Marczak L, Jones MD, Turkington R (2008) The mutualism-parasitism continuum in ectomycorrhizas: a quantitative assessment using meta-analysis. Ecology 89:1032–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lakatos I (1976) Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JD, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2011) Losing the culture of ecology. Bull Ecol Soc Am 92:245–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loreau M (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loreau M (2010) From populations to ecosystems: theoretical foundations for a new ecological synthesis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore MDGoogle Scholar
  55. Massol F, Gravel D, Mouquet N, Cadotte MW, Fukami T, Leibold MA (2011) Linking community and ecosystem dynamics through spatial ecology. Ecol Lett 14:313–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. McGill BJ (2006) A renaissance in the study of abundance. Science 314:770–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Menge BA, Chan F, Dudas S, Eerkes-Medrano D, Grorud-Colvert K, Heiman K, Hessing-Lewis M, Iles A, Milston-Clements R, Noble M, Page-Albins K, Richmond E, Rilov G, Rose J, Tyburczy J, Vinueza L, Zarnetske P (2009) Do terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature? Front Ecol Environ 7:82–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Micheli F, Halpern BS (2005) Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages. Ecol Lett 8:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michener WK (2006) Meta-information concepts for ecological data management. Ecol Inform 1:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murtaugh PA (2002) Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analyses. Ecology 83:1162–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Naeem S, Li SB (1997) Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390:507–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Naeem S, Thompson LJ, Lawler SP, Lawton JH, Woodfin RM (1994) Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olkin I (1996) Meta-analysis: current issues in research synthesis. Stat Med 15:1253–1257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. In: Annual review of ecology evolution and systematics, vol 37. Annual reviews, Palo Alto, pp 637–669Google Scholar
  68. Peter H, Ylla I, Gudasz C, Romani AM, Sabater S, Tranvik LJ (2011) Multifunctionality and diversity in bacterial biofilms. PLoS One 6:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peters RH (1991) A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  70. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org. In, Vienna, Austria
  72. Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ross HH (1957) Principles of natural coexistence indicated by leafhopper populations. Evolution 11:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Biodiversity—global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. Am Sci 70:586–595Google Scholar
  76. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Simberloff D (2006) Rejoinder to: don’t calculate effect sizes; study ecological effects. Ecol Lett 9:921–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spehn EM, Hector A, Joshi J, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Bazeley-White E, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K, Jumpponen A, Koricheva J, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Palmborg C, Pereira JS, Pfisterer AB, Prinz A, Read DJ, Schulze ED, Siamantziouras ASD, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (2005) Ecosystem effects of biodiversity manipulations in European grasslands. Ecol Monogr 75:37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Suding KN, Collins SL, Gough L, Clark C, Cleland EE, Gross KL, Milchunas DG, Pennings S (2005) Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:4387–4392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops J, Wedin D, Mielke T, Lehman C (2001) Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294:843–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tucker CM, Cadotte MW (2011) The empirical divide (http://evol-eco.blogspot.ca/2011/07/empirical-divide.html). In: The EEB and Flow vol 2011
  83. Udvardy MFD (1959) Notes on the ecological concepts of habitat, biotope and niche. Ecology 40:725–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. United Nations Environment Programme (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  85. Volterra V (1931) Variations and fluctuations of the number of individuals in animal species living together. In: Chapman RN (ed) Animal ecology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Wardle DA (1999) Is ‘‘sampling effect’’ a problem for experiments investigating biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships? Oikos 87:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zavaleta ES, Pasari JR, Hulvey KB, Tilman GD (2010) Sustaining multiple ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 107:1443–1446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc W. Cadotte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lea R. Mehrkens
    • 3
  • Duncan N. L. Menge
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Biological SciencesUniversity of Toronto-ScarboroughTorontoUSA
  2. 2.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoUSA
  3. 3.School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations