Cited by 4,704Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant responses to elevated CO2

The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology

Hedges, Larry V., Gurevitch, Jessica, Curtis, Peter S.·1999·Ecology

Abstract

Meta-analysis provides formal statistical techniques for summarizing the results of independent experiments and is increasingly being used in ecology. The response ratio (the ratio of mean outcome in the experimental group to that in the control group) and closely related measures of proportionate change are often used as measures of effect magnitude in ecology. Using these metrics for meta-analysis requires knowledge of their statistical properties, but these have not been previously derived. We give the approximate sampling distribution of the log response ratio, discuss why it is a particularly useful metric for many applications in ecology, and demonstrate how to use it in meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of response-ratio data is illustrated using experimental data on the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant biomass responses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • The log response ratio is a reliable measure of ecological change only when its numerator and denominator refer to the same or equivalent observational units across time.

    “The log response ratio is a reliable measure of ecological change only when its numerator and denominator refer to the same or equivalent observational units across time, ensuring that observed differences reflect real change rather than differences in sample composition (Hedges et al. 1999;Lajeunesse 2015).”
  • The open data movement has considerable scope for remedying publication biases with pre-registration, minimising selective reporting with open data, and facilitating direct generation of effects or multi-level analysis based on raw data.

    “These align with the more generalized open data movement which has considerable scope for remedying publication biases with pre-registration, minimising selective reporting with open data and facilitating direct generation of effects or multi-level analysis based on raw data 68,80,81 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [80]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-06
Volume
80
Issue
4
Pages
1150-1156
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043778196
Cited by
4,704
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 473 · 2025: 577 · 2024: 540 · 2023: 434 · 2022: 368 · 2021: 344 · 2020: 291 · 2019: 239 · 2018: 190 · 2017: 163 · 2016: 182 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 108 · 2012: 99
FWCI
9.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
Keywords
response ratio, meta-analysis, effect size, sampling distribution, log response ratio, experimental ecology, atmospheric CO2 enrichment, plant biomass

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