%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/


%% Created for Eric Coissac at 2018-10-18 14:52:51 +0200 


%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8) 



@article{Tsallis:94:00,
	Author = {Tsallis, Constantino},
	Date-Added = {2018-10-18 14:52:41 +0200},
	Date-Modified = {2018-10-18 14:52:49 +0200},
	Journal = {Quim. Nova},
	Number = 6,
	Pages = {468--471},
	Title = {What are the numbers that experiments provide},
	Volume = 17,
	Year = 1994}
	

@ARTICLE{Whittaker:10:00,
  title     = "Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis
               of the species richness-productivity relationship",
  author    = "Whittaker, Robert J",
  abstract  = "The form of the species richness-productivity relationship
               (SRPR) is both theoretically important and contentious. In an
               effort to distill general patterns, ecologists have undertaken
               meta-analyses, within which each SRPR data set is first
               classified into one of five alternative forms: positive, humped
               (unimodal), negative, U-shaped (unimodal), and no relationship.
               Herein, I first provide a critique of this approach, based on 68
               plant data sets/ studies used in three meta-analyses published
               in Ecology. The meta-analyses are shown to have resulted in
               highly divergent outcomes, inconsistent and often highly
               inappropriate classification of data sets, and the introduction
               and multiplication of errors from one meta-analysis to the next.
               I therefore call on the ecological community at large to adopt a
               far more rigorous and critical attitude to the use of
               meta-analysis. Second, I develop the argument that the
               literature on the SRPR continues to be bedeviled by a common
               failing to appreciate the fundamental importance of the scale of
               analysis, beginning with the confusion evident between concepts
               of grain, focus, and extent. I postulate that variation in the
               form of the SRPR at fine scales of analysis owes much to
               artifacts of the sampling regime adopted. An improved
               understanding may emerge from combining sampling theory with an
               understanding of the factors controlling the form of species
               abundance distributions and species accumulation curves.",
  journal   = "Ecology",
  publisher = "Eco Soc America",
  volume    =  91,
  number    =  9,
  pages     = "2522--2533",
  month     =  sep,
  year      =  2010
}

