The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta‐Analysis and the Comparative Phylogenetic Method
Abstract
Meta-analysis has contributed substantially to shifting paradigms in ecology and has become the primary method for quantitatively synthesizing published research. However, an emerging challenge is the lack of a statistical protocol to synthesize studies and evaluate sources of bias while simultaneously accounting for phylogenetic nonindependence of taxa. Phylogenetic nonindependence arises from homology, the similarity of taxa due to shared ancestry, and treating related taxa as independent data violates assumptions of statistics. Given that an explicit goal of meta-analysis is to generalize research across a broad range of taxa, then phylogenetic nonindependence may threaten conclusions drawn from such reviews. Here I outline a statistical framework that integrates phylogenetic information into conventional meta-analysis when (a) taking a weighted average of effect sizes using fixed- and random-effects models and (b) testing for homogeneity of variances. I also outline how to test evolutionary hypotheses with meta-analysis by describing a method that evaluates phylogenetic conservatism and a model-selection framework that competes neutral and adaptive hypotheses to explain variation in meta-analytical data. Finally, I address several theoretical and practical issues relating to the application and availability of phylogenetic information for meta-analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation
Schluter, D. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198505235.001.0001 · Cited by 4,974
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation
Hansen, T. F. (1997) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x · Cited by 1,361
Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies
PAGEL, M. (1997) · Zoologica Scripta · doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1997.tb00423.x · Cited by 1,106
Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution
Arnqvist, G., & Wooster, D. (1995) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89073-4 · Cited by 570
Maddison, W. P. (1990) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05937.x · Cited by 533
Hedges, L. V. (1992) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986017004279 · Cited by 186
Cited by
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25753 · Cited by 1,709
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data: Phylogenetic regression
Revell, L. J. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00044.x · Cited by 931
Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M., & Lagisz, M. (2017) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7 · Cited by 579
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460
Metadata
- Authors
- Lajeunesse, M. J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 369-381
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2055738603
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 15.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta‐Analysis and the Comparative Phylogenetic Method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/603628
- The paper
- Lajeunesse, M. J. (2009). Meta‐Analysis and the Comparative Phylogenetic Method. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/603628
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.