FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2041013410> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2041013410 endingPage "1131" @default.
• W2041013410 startingPage "1118" @default.
• W2041013410 abstract "Quantitative synthesis across studies requires consistent measures of effect size among studies. In community ecology, these measures of effect size will often be some measure of the strength of interactions between taxa. However, indices of interaction strength vary greatly among both theoretical and empirical studies, and the connection between hypotheses about interaction strength and the metrics that are used to test these hypotheses are often not explicit. We describe criteria for choosing appropriate metrics and methods for comparing them among studies at three stages of designing a meta-analysis to test hypotheses about variation in interaction intensity: (1) the choice of response variable; (2) how effect size is calculated using the response in two treatments; and (3) whether there is a consistent quantitative effect across all taxa and systems studied or only qualitatively similar effects within each taxon–system combination. The consequences of different choices at each of these stages are illustrated with a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between competition/facilitation intensity and productivity in plants. The analysis used a database of 296 cases in 14 studies. The results were unexpected and largely inconsistent with existing theory: competition intensity often significantly declined (rather than increased) with productivity, and facilitation was sometimes restricted to more productive (rather than less productive) sites. However, there was considerable variation in the pattern among response variables and measures of effect size. For example, on average, competitive effects on final biomass and survival decreased with standing crop, but competitive effects on growth rate did not. On the other hand, facilitative interactions were more common at low standing crop for final biomass and growth rate, but more common at high standing crop for survival. Results were more likely to be significant using the log response ratio (ln[removal/control]) as the effect size than using the relative competition intensity ([removal − control]/removal), although the trends for these conceptually similar indices did not differ. When all studies were grouped in a single meta-regression of interaction intensity on standing crop to test quantitative similarity among studies, survival showed the clearest negative relationship. However, when the same regressions were done for each unique combination of taxon and site within each study to test for qualitative similarity among studies, the slopes averaged over studies tended to be negative for biomass and growth rate, but not different from zero for survival. These results are subject to a number of caveats because of the limitations of the available data—most notably, the extension of effects of interactions on individual growth or survival to effects on population distribution and abundance or community structure is highly problematic. Nevertheless, the fact that none of the meta-analyses demonstrated a significant positive relationship between competition and standing crop but that we frequently found negative relationships is an important pattern that has not been apparent from qualitative surveys of individual studies, and it demonstrates the potential power of meta-analysis in ecology. We conclude with recommendations to overcome some of the limitations of the currently available data and meta-analytical procedures." @default.
• W2041013410 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2041013410 creator A5010948572 @default.
• W2041013410 creator A5071781530 @default.
• W2041013410 creator A5076855632 @default.
• W2041013410 creator A5086728894 @default.
• W2041013410 date "1999-06-01" @default.
• W2041013410 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2041013410 title "EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO QUANTIFYING INTERACTION INTENSITY: COMPETITION AND FACILITATION ALONG PRODUCTIVITY GRADIENTS" @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1963614419 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1967857296 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1971776345 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1981968821 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1983254603 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1986242332 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1989275374 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1991492644 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1992089967 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1993503890 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1994935041 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1995664681 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W1998245410 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2001998956 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2004239338 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2008200025 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2008585671 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2011364799 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2014302464 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2014923532 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2015127749 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2018664359 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2031788329 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2033385345 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2034591144 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2035925266 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2037108547 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2043778196 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2050606254 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2054126322 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2055424972 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2056809361 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2059469069 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2064242117 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2064346432 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2067810199 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2069676390 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2071007453 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2081284124 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2083323955 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2084253034 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2084706279 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2087447259 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2092553116 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2096742130 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2104360657 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2107942665 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2111738734 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2116518453 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2129359898 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2136035194 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2149991176 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2150332776 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2151532695 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2162495242 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2171237776 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2178504862 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2312509037 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2317240988 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2323664919 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2323745652 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2324418977 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2330990826 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2332921218 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2333339961 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W2334938219 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W4237315514 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W4366445908 @default.
• W2041013410 cites W950367241 @default.
• W2041013410 doi "https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1118:eatqii]2.0.co;2" @default.
• W2041013410 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2041013410 type Work @default.
• W2041013410 sameAs 2041013410 @default.
• W2041013410 citedByCount "443" @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102012 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102013 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102014 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102015 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102016 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102017 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102018 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102019 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102020 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102021 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102022 @default.
• W2041013410 countsByYear W20410134102023 @default.
• W2041013410 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2041013410 hasAuthorship W2041013410A5010948572 @default.
• W2041013410 hasAuthorship W2041013410A5071781530 @default.

• next