Abstract
In macroecology, a classic empirical observation has been positive relationships between local abundance and species’ range, known as the abundance-occupancy relationships (AORs). The existence of this empirical relationship has informed both theory development and applied questions. Notably, the spatial neutral model of biodiversity predicts AORs. Yet, based on the largest known meta-analysis of 16,562,995 correlations from ~3 billion bird observations, this relationship was indistinguishable from zero. Further, in a phylogenetic comparative analysis, species range had no predictive power over the global mean abundance of 7,464 bird species. We suggest that publication and confirmation biases may have created AORs, an illusion of a ‘universal’ pattern. This nullification highlights the need for ecologists to instigate a credibility revolution like psychology, where many classic phenomena have been nullified.
eLife assessment
This study offers a useful discussion of the well-accepted abundance-occupancy relationship in macroecology. While using the ebird large dataset to revisit the theme is interesting, multiple unresolved confounding factors exist, leaving the results inadequate to overturn the repeatedly confirmed abundancy-occupancy relationship.
Main
A positive interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution —abundance-occupancy relationships (AORs) — is considered one of the most general and robust patterns in ecology 1–4. Sometimes referred to as a macroecological law 5,6, the AOR asserts that empirically locally abundant species tend to be widely distributed, and conversely, locally rare species tend to be geographically restricted in their range. The mechanism driving this relationship was never proven, and it remains unresolved why species distribution should affect per-unit-area abundance (or vice versa). Nonetheless, the existence of a pervasive AOR has underpinned many practical applications in ecology and conservation 7, for example, setting harvest rates for fisheries 8, managing invasive species by restricting expansion rather than local elimination, and identifying species at high risk of extinction in biodiversity inventories such as the IUCN Red List Criteria 9. Given the increasing human-induced land-use changes in the Anthropocene 10, concomitantly with increasing debate about global biodiversity change [cf. 11], fully understanding the relationship between abundance and range size is of increasing importance.
Many plausible biological mechanisms have been proposed for AORs, yet none of them has unequivocal support 3,4,12,13. Among all mechanisms, it is noteworthy that a spatially explicit neutral model of biodiversity and biogeography can generate AORs 14,15. Specifically, this macroecological ‘null’ model can produce a positive correlation between species range (or occupancy) and their per-unit-area local as well as total global abundance. This observation, in turn, supports the utility of neutral theory as a null model of community and macroecology 14. Although neutral theory may provide a biological null model, an additional null hypothesis is that AOR does not exist. Indeed, sampling bias can create AORs because locally rare species are more likely to be missed, resulting in an underestimation of range size or occupancy, thereby generating a positive relationship 13,16. Yet, this sampling explanation has long been discarded as a plausible mechanism leading to observed patterns 2,3,17. This is because of substantial empirical evidence for positive interspecific relationships, including a meta-analysis of 279 effect sizes with an overall effect of r = 0.58 (or its Fisher’s transformation: Zr = 0.66) in 2006 1. It does not seem that sampling bias alone could explain this remarkably strong relationship.
Nonetheless, a large amount of variation does exist in empirical patterns of AORs, including strikingly negative relationships 12,18-20. Some of the observed heterogeneity is likely to be due to different aspects of sampling, such as the number of species and spatial and temporal coverage 3,4,12. Also, other types of bias could generate artefactual AORs: namely ‘confirmation bias’, where sampling is prejudiced to support one’s hypothesis and ‘publication bias’, where statistically significant relationships are preferentially reported and published. Although both biases are widespread, including in ecological studies 21–23, no studies so far systematically considered or quantified both biases in the context of AORs [cf. 1]. Furthermore, there has, until recently, been a lack of large and methodologically consistent data resources, therefore leaving a traditional meta-analytic approach as the best available option for testing the validity and generality of the AOR.
A citizen-science dataset to test AORs
Here, we use data from eBird — a global citizen science dataset aimed at counting birds — to quantify the relationship between abundance and occupancy (AOR). Large citizen science datasets collected for non-hypothesis-driven purposes are not random samples [see 24], but they have the advantage of avoiding biases such as confirmation and publication bias. Also, using the eBird dataset allows us to estimate heterogeneity due to sampling intensity (e.g., the duration of a sampling event directly influences the number of species recorded). Specifically, we can quantify how AOR will change in relation to increases in species richness and sampling duration, both of which are predicted to reduce the magnitude of AORs 3,4,19.
For occupancy, we use global range size not only because global range size should be relatively stable — ‘local’ range sizes for one species could vary dramatically — but also because different types of occupancy measures were deemed to contribute less to the observation heterogeneity 25,26. Fortunately, for birds, a large database of global range sizes has already been compiled 27. For abundance, we use two different measurements: local species counts and local mean density, as follows. First, we carry out the largest known meta-analysis by synthesizing correlations between global range sizes of 7,635 species and local species counts collected across 16,562,995 eBird checklists (resulting in 16,562,995 Zr values and corresponding sampling variances; Fig. 1). These checklists all included counts of each species present and the duration of observation (hereafter, effort time).
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_fig1.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
A conceptual overview of our methods.
We aggregated individual eBird checklists across the world (shown on the map), represented by the three colored insets which show the relationship between global range size (x-axis) and local abundance (y-axis) and the associated correlation value. We then aggregated these checklist level measures for 16,562,995 eBird checklists into the largest-ever meta-analysis to find the global level relationship between global range size and local abundance.
Second, we conduct a phylogenetically controlled comparative analysis, regressing species range sizes on 7,464 estimates of globally derived species’ mean density, equivalent to mean local density (per 5-degree grid cell), estimated in earlier work 28 (see Methods for more details). Given the different potential biases mentioned before, we expected a more modest relationship in relation to that of the previous meta-analysis (r = 0.58; note that this relationship included many different taxa; if restricted to bird species, it was even stronger r = 0.74 or Zr = 0.95) 17. Also, although no such empirical evidence appears to exist, it seems feasible that in filling in an eBird checklist, some people may undercount common and widespread species while they may overcount rare and geographically restricted species. If this is the case, the relationship (AORs) could be further weakened. Yet, if such overcounting and undercounting were present, we expect it would introduce large heterogeneity into our dataset because that type of behaviour would not be consistent across all contributors, and they would sometimes result in negative AORs, increasing variability among the 16,562,995 Zr values.
Overwhelming support against AOR
Surprisingly, the overall (aggregated) relationship between local abundance and global occupancy was near-zero (r = 0.015), although this relationship was statistically significant due to our extremely large sample size (p = 0.0005, z = 2.805, Zr = b[overall mean] = 0.015, 95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.025]; Fig. 2, Table S1). However, this significant relationship disappeared (r = 0.0009) once we controlled for species number and effort time (p = 0.863, z = 0.173, Zr = b[overall mean] = 0.0009, 95% CI = [-0.0092, 0.0111]); both variables were statistically significant predictors of the effect. As expected, the increase in species number (modelled as the inverse of species number - 3, which is equivalent to sampling error for Zr) and effort time on the natural log scale, decreased the strength of the relationship (sampling variance: p < 0.0001, z = 140.29; b[sampling variance] = 0.0147, 95% CI = [-0.0149, -0.0145]); ln(effort time): p < 0.0001, z = -183.45, b[ln(effort time)] = 0.230, 95% CI = [0.226, 0.233]; marginal R2 = 5.1% for the model with these two predictors; 29; Table S2-4). These observations are consistent with the explanation that sampling protocols can create positive artifactual relationships between range and abundance.
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_fig2.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Funnel plots.
(A) the relationship between 16,562,995 effect sizes (Fisher’s; x-axis) and their precision (the square root of the inverse of the sampling variance; y-axis). (B) the relationship between 16,562,995 correlations based on 3,005,668,285 observations of 7,635 species (Pearson’s correlation coefficients; x-axis) and the number of species – 3, which is the inverse of the sampling variances for Zr (y-axis). Both plots consist of data points with the red dashed line indicating zero effect.
Even more remarkably, our meta-analysis suggested that the AOR is likely indistinguishable from zero even with a larger dataset because the observed heterogeneity among effect sizes was very small (i.e., most effect sizes were effectively zero after accounting for sample size). A measure of relative heterogeneity I2[total] was 13.5%, meaning that 86.5% of all the observed variation (in Fig. 2) is due to sampling error, therefore, is neither biological nor ecological (country level; I2 = 5.5%, σ2 = 0.005; state level: I2 = 6.3%, σ2 = 0.005; effect-size level; I2 = 1.5%, σ2 = 0.001); in contrast, the average I2[total] across 86 ecological meta-analyses was approximately 92% 30, making our observed heterogeneity unusually low. Low relative heterogeneity, however, does not necessarily mean absolute heterogeneity is also low 31. We found the absolute heterogeneity, σ2[total] = 0.011, approximately one-thirtieth of the heterogeneity (σ2[total] = 0.323) found in the previous meta-analysis 1. Also, this is around one-tenth of the average heterogeneity (σ2[total] = 0.125; median = 0.105), found in 31 meta-analyses in ecology and evolution 23. Overall, low relative and absolute heterogeneities indicate that our dataset of 16,562,995 effect sizes does not have much variability left to be explained despite our observations coming from many different locations across the globe and contributed by tens of thousands of individual birdwatchers. Importantly, we emphasize that this combination of zero effect and very small heterogeneity is only expected when a particular phenomenon is not real.
Moreover, our phylogenetic comparative analysis, which accounted for phylogenetic uncertainty 32, corroborated our meta-analytic results [cf. 33]. The global range sizes had little predictive power on mean species density (both on log10; p = 0.808, t99.6 = 0.0227, b[slope] = 0.0928, 95% CI = [-0.1615, 0.2068]; Fig. 3, Table S5). Taken together, our results provide overwhelming evidence against the fundamental relationship between species range and local abundance, while the results are consistent with this relationship as a sampling artifact. Nevertheless, our results are also consistent with previously published empirical evidence. This is because we have shown that relationships between global species ranges and local counts can be null, strongly negative, or strongly positive, which can be generated primarily by sampling (error) variance (shown in Fig. 2).
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_fig3.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
The relationship between species average (mean) density and species range size.
We calculated the mean density of a species in 5-degree grids where species occurred (y-axis) while the species range size (x-axis) was estimated by the sum of the percentage occurrence of the species multiplied by the grid size (km2) across all the 575 grids (7,464 species). The blue line indicates an average slope line from phylogenetic comparative models with 100 different posterior phylogenetic trees.
Lawless macroecology and non-neutral theory: implications
Our results demonstrate clearly that the AOR is not observed in a very large global dataset, with both applied and theoretical ramifications. First, we must reconsider fishing quotas, conservation priorities, and invasive species control strategies based on AORs [cf. 7]. Second, it is probably futile to pursue all ecological or biological mechanisms proposed for AORs [see 3,13]. We cannot exclude, however, the possibility of AORs occasionally emerging in some restricted areas because there was a small unexplained variance in the meta-analytic dataset. Most notably, our near-zero results with small heterogeneity suggest that contrary to earlier suggestions 14,15, the spatial neutral model is not a suitable null model of macroecology. Within the neutral theoretical framework, AORs can be broken by local adaptation (an alternative hypothesis) 14. If local adaptation were to disrupt a predicted positive relationship (AOR), we would have observed substantial heterogeneity and a reduced relationship, not a near-zero relationship. This is because it is extremely unlikely that local adaptation and neutral processes are in a perfect balance, resulting in an exact-zero relationship with little heterogeneity. In other words, local adaptions are expected to create local specificities and global variability/heterogeneity; our meta-analysis did not find such variability.
We point out that any model of a positive AOR posits a mechanism that connects species range and local abundance, whereas Rabinowitz effectively decoupled these two variables 34. Our results are consistent with this decoupling. By adding habit specificity to species range and abundance, she suggests seven forms of rarity, which could reflect different underlying macroecological mechanisms; for example, two forms of rarity are geographically restricted but locally abundant with narrow or broad habitat types. Unlike the world created by the spatial neutral model, our results support many such ‘rare’ species 35. In this regard, it is no longer surprising that AORs do not exist. Therefore, we believe Rabinowitz’s framework, rather than the AOR, has more empirical support from global-scale patterns of species abundance and provides a useful conceptual structure for future theoretical and applied work, although this line of work is still limited.
A credibility revolution in ecology beyond biases and crises
Whilst we provided an explanation for the non-existence of AOR, it still feels hard to comprehend the extent of overestimation in the previous meta-analysis (r = 0.58 for all taxa; r = 0.74 for birds) 1,17. We have shown that some bias may be due to sampling bias. However, we speculate that much of the overestimation originates from publication bias and confirmation bias, which is supported by mounting evidence from meta-research studies 21–23. Although we do not have direct evidence, our eBird datasets are free from these two types of biases (i.e., birdwatchers generally do not think of the macroecological patterns that would later be tested with the data they submit), while the literature-based meta-analyses are not. Regarding publication bias, the original meta-analysis of AOR states, “the fail-safe number indicates that more than half a million unpublished null results would be required to nullify an effect of this magnitude” 1. Indeed, we provided much more than a half million null effects to reach our null conclusion (Fig. 2), although we should note that large datasets like eBird have other biases than publication or confirmation biases 24. For example, it is possible that by excluding checklists with a single ‘X’ (see Methods), we are preferentially removing abundant species as birdwatchers may report ‘X’ for more common species with high abundances.
A recent study reexamining 86 ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses demonstrated a 23% reduction in overall effects due to publication bias, turning 33 of 50 statistically significant meta-analytic conclusions (66%) into non-significant 23. Similarly, a study examining 83 topics in life sciences showed that the effect size of non-blind studies, which are at risk of confirmation bias, was twice as large as blinded counterparts protected against confirmation bias 21 [see also 22].
We finish with an intriguing parallel topic to AORs in psychology, where the current replication crisis started 36,37. There have been over 100 studies, and many theoretical models support the hypothesis of ‘ego depletion’ where self-control is a finite resource, so self-control will decrease once it is exerted 38. The first meta-analysis of ego depletion, like AOR, suggested a very strong support for it (standardized mean difference, or d = 0.62). Yet a subsequent multi-lab replication found that ego-depletion does not exist is so weak as to be negligible (d = 0.04) 39. Indeed, a series of multi-lab replications has indicated that several psychological phenomena, which were once believed to be real beyond a reasonable doubt, are too weak to be useful or are nonexistent40. In ecology, recently collated large datasets collected for non-hypothesis-driven purposes offer a unique opportunity to revisit and retest longstanding ideas.
Taken together, we call for reexamining all ecological laws, rules, and patterns, as very few topics are free from sampling, confirmation, and publication biases [cf. 41]. To counter such biases, we urgently require a ‘credibility revolution’, a more optimistic name for a replication crisis, turning this crisis into an opportunity to improve science. A credibility revolution in ecology, like in psychology, needs to embrace non-traditional to avoid confirmation and publication bias, such as pre-registration 42, registered reports 43, prospective and living meta-analyses, open synthesis communities 44, and big-team-science collaborations 45 involving community (citizen) scientists 46.
Methods
Quantifying abundance-occupancy relationship at the local-scale
We used the eBird dataset 47,48 to assess the relationship between local-scale abundance and occupancy (i.e., global range size). eBird, launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, is a global citizen science project which enlists volunteer birdwatchers to submit ‘checklists’ of birds seen and/or heard while birdwatching. Data undergo a semi-automated filtering process before being entered into the dataset, and expert reviewers additionally review species (or counts of species) that surpass pre-set filters before being accepted into the dataset 49. Importantly, birdwatchers must indicate whether they are submitting a ‘complete’ checklist representing all birds that an individual birdwatcher was able to identify during their birdwatching outing. Further, birdwatchers can either submit the count of a species during their birding, or they can submit an ‘X’ to signify that a species was present but not estimate the number of individuals present during their birdwatching outing.
We downloaded the eBird basic dataset (version ebd_rel-May2020) and considered all eBird checklists between January 1st, 2005 and May 31st 2020. We then performed some quality assurance, applying an additional set of filters to the data, potentially removing any ‘outliers’ that could produce undue leverage on our results. The following filtering was completed [sensu 24,50]. We only included: (1) complete checklists; (2) checklists that were <240 minutes and >5 minutes; (3) checklists that travelled < 5km; and (4) checklists that travelled < 500 ha. Because birdwatchers will sometimes use an ‘X’ to signify presence, and this is most likely to happen for more abundant species, we excluded any checklist which had at least any “X” on it, as this could potentially influence the correlation between the abundance of a species and range size by disproportionately removing the most abundant species from the correlation. We further only considered checklists that had at least ten species recorded on them, and a correlation test was performed only if we had range size data (see below) for a minimum of 4 species on the checklist.
We used range size maps from BirdLife International 27. When an eBird checklist met the aforementioned criteria, we performed a correlation test using Pearson’s correlation coefficient from the cor.test function in R 51. Both the counts of every species and the range size were log-transformed before estimating a correlation (for a workflow, see Fig. 1). We obtained 16,562,995 correlations based on 3,005,668,285 individual bird observations, including 7,635 species. We note that we conducted all computational and statistical work using R and we created plots using the R package, ggplot2 52, patchwork 53 and their dependencies.
Meta-analysis of Big Data
We transformed correlations between species abundance and range into Fisher’s Z o Zr to unbound and calculated sampling variance for each Zr value; note that the inverse of the sampling variance of Zr is N (the number of species) – 3 (see Fig 1). We used the R package, asreml 54 to run a multilevel random-effects model 55; note the asreml is a commercial package, so it is not free. Our large meta-analyses with ~17 million effect sizes were only able to run with asreml given the computational time required for such a large dataset. We had ‘country’ (245 levels) and state code (2,871 levels) as random factors in the model to control for non-independence. In addition, to quantify the variance component for these two clustering factors and also at the level of effect sizes (16,562,995 levels), we modelled ‘units’ (the effect size level random effect or residuals) in the asreml function with ‘the number of species - 3’ as the ‘weights’ argument and asr_gaussian(dispersion = 1) as the ‘family’ argument. We also obtained the multilevel versions of I2 30,56 to obtain relative heterogeneity for our meta-analytic model (Table S1).
To gauge the impacts of potential biases, we fitted two moderators: 1) the z-transformed version of ln(checklist duration) as a surrogate for the amount of effort for observation and 2) sampling variance, which is usually used to detect publication bias, more specifically, small study bias where effect sizes from small studies can create ‘funnel asymmetry’, creating bias in meta-analytic overall mean 57 (cf. Fig. 2). We ran two uni-moderator models and one multi-moderator model with both moderators (three meta-regression models in total; Table S2-4). We estimated the multilevel model versions of R2 29.
Quantifying the abundance-occupancy relationship at the macro-scale
To corroborate our local-level analysis described above, we quantified an additional macro-scale analysis of the relationship between abundance (i.e., density) and occupancy (global range size). For this, we used data from a recently published analysis of global abundances for birds within 5-degree grid cells 28. This dataset was derived by integrating expert-derived abundance measures with a large, less structured global citizen science dataset using a multiple-imputation technique to estimate density within 5-degree grids for 9,700 bird species (575 girds). We used these predicted density estimates from each grid cell and, for each species, took the mean of all density estimates in the grid cells for which a species was found. This mean density was then our measure of macro-scale abundance. For our measure of occupancy, we used a summation of all range sizes for the grids a species was found in, calculated by using range maps from BirdLife International focusing on the entire extent of a species’ extant range, ignoring the effect of transient species. Our analysis incorporated a total of 7,464 species of bird species, corresponding to the species for which we had both range maps and estimated density, along with phylogenetic information included in 58.
Phylogenetic comparative analysis
To statistically test whether there was an effect of abundance and occupancy at the macro-scale, we used phylogenetic comparative analysis. We used avian phylogeny from 58 and analysed 100 phylogenetic trees using the R function phylolm 59. Resulting estimates from the 100 models were merged using Rubin’s rules, as described in 32, to obtain current estimates and errors that accounted for phylogenetic uncertainty (Table S5); we implemented this procedure using the R function miInference from the norm2 package 60.
Acknowledgements
We thank Szymek Drobniak for helping run large meta-analytic models on a cluster computer system. We are also grateful to Malgorzata Lagisz, Tim Parker, Daniel Noble, Tim Blackburn, and Diana Bowler, and Luís Borda de Agua for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Funding
Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant, DP210100812 (SN)
Data and materials availability
All data, code, and materials are available online unless they are too large to be archived (https://github.com/itchyshin/AORs), and they will be archived in a public repository after the manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Supplementary Materials
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_tabS1.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Results of the intercept meta-analytic model using the asreml function
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_tabS2.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Results of the meta-regression model with ‘checklist duration’ as a moderator, using the asreml function
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_tabS3.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Results of the meta-regression model with ‘sampling variance’ as a moderator, using the asreml function
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_tabS4.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Results of the meta-regression model with ‘checklist duration’ and ‘sampling variance’ as moderators, using the asreml function
![](https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/iiif/2/95857%2Fv1%2FX28P5W%2FX28P5Wv1_tabS5.tif/full/max/0/default.jpg)
Results of the phylogenetic regression using the phylolm and miInference functions
References
- 1Variations on a theme: sources of heterogeneity in the form of the interspecific relationship between abundance and distributionJ Anim Ecol 75:1426–1439https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01167.x
- 2The multiple forms of the interspecific abundance-distribution relationshipOikos 76:211–220https://doi.org/10.2307/3546192
- 3Interspecific abundance range size relationships: An appraisal of mechanismsJ Anim Ecol 66:579–601https://doi.org/10.2307/5951
- 4Weak but consistent abundance-occupancy relationships across taxa, space and timeGlobal Ecol Biogeogr 31:968–977https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13472
- 5A critique for macroecologyOikos 84:353–368https://doi.org/10.2307/3546417
- 6Are there general laws in ecology?Oikos 84:177–192https://doi.org/10.2307/3546712
- 7Implications of interspecific and intraspecific abundance-occupancy relationshipsOikos 86:195–207https://doi.org/10.2307/3546438
- 8Relationships between geographic distribution and abundance of American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in the southern Gulf of St LawrenceCan J Fish Aquat Sci 53:106–119https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-53-1-106
- 9Abundance-occupancy relationshipsJ Appl Ecol 37:39–59https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00485.x
- 10Defining the AnthropoceneNature 519:171–180https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258
- 11Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declinesNature 588https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2920-6
- 12The pervasive influence of sampling and methodological artefacts on a macroecological pattern: the abundance-occupancy relationshipGlobal Ecol Biogeogr 17:457–464https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00385.x
- 13Causality of the Relationship between Geographic Distribution and Species AbundanceQ Rev Biol 85:3–25https://doi.org/10.1086/650265
- 14Ecology - Neutral macroecologyScience 293:2413–2418https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5539.2413
- 15A unified theory of biogeography and relative species abundance and its application to tropical rain forests and coral reefsCoral Reefs 16:S9–S21https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050237
- 16Range Size and Local Abundance of Some North-American Songbirds - a Positive CorrelationAm Nat 122:295–299https://doi.org/10.1086/284136
- 17Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one: a response to ‘Missing the rarest: is the positive interspecific abundance-distribution relationship a truly general macroecological pattern?’Biol Letters 5:777–778https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0432
- 18Negative density-distribution relationship in butterfliesBmc Biol 3https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-3-5
- 19Missing the rarest: is the positive interspecific abundance-distribution relationship a truly general macroecological pattern?Biol Letters 5:492–494https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0282
- 20On the obvious positive interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution: a reply to Blackburn and GastonBiol Letters 5:779–780https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0682
- 21Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data RecordingPlos Biol 13https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190
- 22Confirmation Bias in Studies of Nestmate Recognition: A Cautionary Note for Research into the Behaviour of AnimalsPlos One 8https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053548
- 23Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biologyBmc Biol 21https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01485-y
- 24Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science dataAvian Conserv Ecol 12https://doi.org/10.5751/Ace-01104-120212
- 25The consequences of using different measures of mean abundance to characterize the abundance-occupancy relationshipGlobal Ecol Biogeogr 20:193–202https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00569.x
- 26Sampling scales define occupancy and underlying occupancy-abundance relationships in animalsEcology 99:172–183https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2054
- 27BirdLife International. Species distribution data request (http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis). (2023).
- 28Global abundance estimates for 9,700 bird speciesP Natl Acad Sci USA 118https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023170118
- 29A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects modelsMethods Ecol Evol 4:133–142https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
- 30Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses: its magnitude and implicationsEcology 97:3293–3299https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1591
- 31Basics of meta-analysis: I-2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneityRes Synth Methods 8:5–18https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230
- 32A General Method for Simultaneously Accounting for Phylogenetic and Species Sampling Uncertainty via Rubin’s Rules in Comparative AnalysisSyst Biol 68:632–641https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy089
- 33Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: Range position and phylogenyEcography 20:390–399https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00384.x
- 34The biological aspects of rare plant conservation:205–217
- 35Seven forms of rarity in mammalsJ Biogeogr 27:131–139https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00366.x
- 36Estimating the reproducibility of psychological scienceScience 349https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
- 37The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move ForwardPerspect Psychol Sci 16:779–788https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586
- 38What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-ControlPerspect Psychol Sci 7:450–463https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454134
- 39A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion EffectPerspect Psychol Sci 11:546–573https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
- 40Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects (vol 19, pg 561, 2020)Nat Hum Behav 4:659–663https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0864-3
- 41Sampling biases shape our view of the natural worldEcography 44:1259–1269https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05926
- 42The preregistration revolutionP Natl Acad Sci USA 115:2600–2606https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
- 43The past, present and future of Registered ReportsNat Hum Behav 6:29–42https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7
- 44A new ecosystem for evidence synthesisNat Ecol Evol 4:498–501https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1153-2
- 45Build up big-team scienceNature 601:505–507https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00150-2
- 46Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard samplingPlos Biol 17https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000357
- 47The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen scienceBiol Conserv 169:31–40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
- 48eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciencesBiol Conserv 142:2282–2292https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006
- 49Brokering Trust in Citizen ScienceSoc Natur Resour 32:292–302https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507
- 50Analytical guidelines to increase the value of community science data: An example using eBird data to estimate species distributionsDivers Distrib 27:1265–1277https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13271
- 51R: A language and environment for statistical computing
- 52Use R!
- 53patchwork: The composer of plots
- 54asreml: Fits the linear mixed model
- 55Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysisEvol Ecol 26:1253–1274https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5
- 56Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStat Med 21:1539–1558https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
- 57Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analysesMethods Ecol Evol 13:4–21https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13724
- 58The global diversity of birds in space and timeNature 491:444–448https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631
- 59A Linear-Time Algorithm for Gaussian and Non-Gaussian Trait Evolution ModelsSyst Biol 63:397–408https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu005
- 60norm2: Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data under a Normal Model
Article and author information
Version history
- Preprint posted:
- Sent for peer review:
- Reviewed Preprint version 1:
Copyright
© 2024, Nakagawa et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
- views
- 111
- downloads
- 0
- citations
- 0
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.