TABLE 1.

Meta‐analyses of correlations between plant abundance in the field and plant‐soil feedback measured in controlled experiments

Null test method	Most influential study	Herbaceous and woody functional types	Herbaceous functional type
Conservative a	Present	0.323 (0.101; 0.515) c	0.228 (−0.036, 0.463) c
	Absent	0.237 (0.054, 0.405)	0.134 (−0.047, 0.306)
Liberal b	Present	0.241 (0.017, 0.443) c	0.174 (−0.091, 0.415) c
	Absent	0.123 (−0.028, 0.281)	0.070 (−0.099, 0.235)

Pooled effect sizes (mean correlation coefficient, $\overline{r}$) and confidence intervals (95% CI in brackets) are reported for two different methods for testing the null hypothesis of no correlation, presence of the most influential study (i.e., study #10 of Figure 2), and whether analyses were of herbaceous and woody (sample size = 21–22) or only herbaceous studies (sample size = 15–16). Significant nonzero correlations (i.e., effect sizes) are in bold and are based on 95% confidence intervals.

^aThe largest positive correlation coefficient (r) per experiment and conservative test of the null hypothesis.

^bAverage r per experiment.

^csignificant (α = 0.05) heterogeneity.