Initial commit of the project

inst/REFERENCES.bib

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+%% 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
+}
+