Data from: Comparing traditional and Bayesian approaches to ecological meta-analysis

  • Paula Pappalardo (Contributor)
  • Kiona Ogle (Contributor)
  • Elizabeth A. Hamman (Contributor)
  • James R. Bence (Contributor)
  • Bruce A. Hungate (Contributor)
  • C. W. Osenberg (Contributor)



1. Despite the wide application of meta-analysis in ecology, some of the traditional methods used for meta-analysis may not perform well given the type of data characteristic of ecological meta-analyses. 2. We reviewed published meta-analyses on the ecological impacts of global climate change, evaluating the number of replicates used in the primary studies (ni) and the number of studies or records (k) that were aggregated to calculate a mean effect size. We used the results of the review in a simulation experiment to assess the performance of conventional frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis methods for estimating a mean effect size and its uncertainty interval. 3. Our literature review showed that ni and k were highly variable, distributions were right-skewed, and were generally small (median ni =5, median k=44). Our simulations show that the choice of method for calculating uncertainty intervals was critical for obtaining appropriate coverage (close to the nominal value of 0.95). When k was low (95%) coverage for the mean effect when k was very low (k
Date made availableJul 14 2020

Cite this