1999
DOI: 10.2307/177062
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Meta-Analysis of Response Ratios in Experimental Ecology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
1,758
2
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,301 publications
(1,787 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
1,758
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the minority of cases where total plant biomass was not available or could not be calculated, we used shoot biomass as a proxy for total plant biomass. We then used the response ratio Ln(R) = Ln(X AMF /X c ) as the effect size, where X AMF and X c are the mean total biomass values for the inoculated and control treatments, respectively (Hedges et al 1999). A positive value of Ln(R) indicates a positive effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation on total plant biomass.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the minority of cases where total plant biomass was not available or could not be calculated, we used shoot biomass as a proxy for total plant biomass. We then used the response ratio Ln(R) = Ln(X AMF /X c ) as the effect size, where X AMF and X c are the mean total biomass values for the inoculated and control treatments, respectively (Hedges et al 1999). A positive value of Ln(R) indicates a positive effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation on total plant biomass.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E calculated in this manner is equivalent to a ln effect size (Hedges et al, 1999) typically used to compare the magnitude of responses across multiple response variables in meta-analysis (e.g., Kroeker et al, 2013). When the trait decreased with temperature (e.g., net growth rates), the ratio was rearranged (i.e., ln…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are also other metrics available for this type of primary data (means, variances and sample sizes), such as the log response ratio lnR (Rosenberg et al 2000), but we chose d because our data were not suitable for use of the response ratio (e.g. in some studies, the control group value was zero; Hedges et al 1999). Positive values of d indicate that the predator treatment had a positive effect on prey species, zero means that there was no difference between treatment and control, and negative values signify a greater response in controls.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%