Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies

Clements and colleagues [1] claim there is an extreme decline effect in studies published between 2009 and 2019 on the impacts of ocean acidification (OA) on fish behaviour, with the modelled average effect size declining from >5 in 2009 to 2010 to <0.5 after 2015. Here, I show that the extrem...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:PLOS Biology
Main Author: Munday, Philip L.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Public Library of Science 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/1/77599.pdf
id ftjamescook:oai:researchonline.jcu.edu.au:77599
record_format openpolar
spelling ftjamescook:oai:researchonline.jcu.edu.au:77599 2024-02-11T10:07:27+01:00 Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies Munday, Philip L. 2022 application/pdf https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/1/77599.pdf unknown Public Library of Science https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001809 https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/1/77599.pdf Munday, Philip L. (2022) Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies. PLoS Biology, 20 (11). e3001809. open Article PeerReviewed 2022 ftjamescook https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001809 2024-01-22T23:52:16Z Clements and colleagues [1] claim there is an extreme decline effect in studies published between 2009 and 2019 on the impacts of ocean acidification (OA) on fish behaviour, with the modelled average effect size declining from >5 in 2009 to 2010 to <0.5 after 2015. Here, I show that the extreme decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues is a statistical artifact caused by the way they corrected for zero values in percentage data, which was more common in the earliest experiments compared with later studies. Furthermore, selective choices for excluding or including data, along with data compilation errors and missing studies with strong effects, weakened the effect sizes reported for papers after 2010, further exacerbating the decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues. When the data is reanalysed using appropriate corrections for zeros in percentage and proportional data and using a complete, corrected, and properly screened data set, the extreme decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues no longer exists (Fig 1A and 1B). Instead, there is a more gentle and consistent decline in effect size magnitude through time, from a modelled average <3 in 2009 to 2010 (Fig 1C) and remaining well above zero in 2018 to 2019 (Fig 1D). Article in Journal/Newspaper Ocean acidification James Cook University, Australia: ResearchOnline@JCU PLOS Biology 20 11 e3001809
institution Open Polar
collection James Cook University, Australia: ResearchOnline@JCU
op_collection_id ftjamescook
language unknown
description Clements and colleagues [1] claim there is an extreme decline effect in studies published between 2009 and 2019 on the impacts of ocean acidification (OA) on fish behaviour, with the modelled average effect size declining from >5 in 2009 to 2010 to <0.5 after 2015. Here, I show that the extreme decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues is a statistical artifact caused by the way they corrected for zero values in percentage data, which was more common in the earliest experiments compared with later studies. Furthermore, selective choices for excluding or including data, along with data compilation errors and missing studies with strong effects, weakened the effect sizes reported for papers after 2010, further exacerbating the decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues. When the data is reanalysed using appropriate corrections for zeros in percentage and proportional data and using a complete, corrected, and properly screened data set, the extreme decline effect reported by Clements and colleagues no longer exists (Fig 1A and 1B). Instead, there is a more gentle and consistent decline in effect size magnitude through time, from a modelled average <3 in 2009 to 2010 (Fig 1C) and remaining well above zero in 2018 to 2019 (Fig 1D).
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Munday, Philip L.
spellingShingle Munday, Philip L.
Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
author_facet Munday, Philip L.
author_sort Munday, Philip L.
title Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
title_short Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
title_full Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
title_fullStr Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
title_full_unstemmed Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
title_sort reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies
publisher Public Library of Science
publishDate 2022
url https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/1/77599.pdf
genre Ocean acidification
genre_facet Ocean acidification
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001809
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/77599/1/77599.pdf
Munday, Philip L. (2022) Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies. PLoS Biology, 20 (11). e3001809.
op_rights open
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001809
container_title PLOS Biology
container_volume 20
container_issue 11
container_start_page e3001809
_version_ 1790606015063916544