Cited by 64Animal Behavior and ReproductionAvian ecology and behaviorAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

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

JARVINEN, ANTERO·1991·Ibis

Abstract

The effects of age (1 year‐old vs older females) on laying‐date and clutch‐size of the Great Tit Parus major (in eight independent study areas) and the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (five areas) were meta‐analysed using both published and unpublished records. To standardize comparisons between areas and species, the standardized difference between the means of the two age groups was used as a measure of the magnitude of the age‐effect (effect size). In Great Tits the laying‐date of ‘young’ females was 0.30 standard deviation units later and clutch‐size 0.31 units smaller than that of ‘old’ females. In the Pied Flycatcher the corresponding figures were 0.45 and 0.81, respectively. All the effect size measures were highly significant but for clutch‐size the effect size of the Pied Flycatcher was significantly greater than that of the Great Tit. In the Great Tit the effect size of clutch‐size was heterogeneous across the different study areas. It was estimated that the following numbers of unpublished studies showing null results would have to have accumulated in file‐drawers before we could say that the results concerning effect sizes are due to sampling bias: for Great Tits 121 studies of laying‐date and 196 studies of clutch‐size; and for Pied Flycatchers 45 studies of laying‐date and 139 studies of clutch‐size.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1474-919x.1991.tb04811.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All of these elements have been the subject of conceptual exploration and formal methodological development in meta-analysis for many years.

    “All of these elements have been the subject of conceptual exploration and formal methodological development in meta-analysis for many years 78 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [78]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JARVINEN, A.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
JARVINEN, ANTERO
Venue
Ibis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-01
Volume
133
Issue
1
Pages
62-67
ISSN
  • 0019-1019 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-919X
OpenAlex
W2122326897
Cited by
64
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ibis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
laying date, clutch size, Parus major, Ficedula hypoleuca, avian reproduction, sampling bias

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