Supporting Information: PRISMA-EcoEvo 1 Supporting Information 2 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and 3 Meta-Analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A 4 PRISMA extension 5 6 Rose E. O’Dea1, Malgorzata Lagisz1, Michael D. Jennions2, Julia Koricheva3, Daniel W.A. 7 Noble1,2, Timothy H. Parker4, Jessica Gurevitch5, Matthew J. Page6, Gavin Stewart7, David 8 Moher8, Shinichi Nakagawa1 9 1 Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological and Environmental 10 Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. 11 2 Research School of Biology, 46 Sulivans Creek Road, Australian National University, 12 Canberra, 2600, Australia. 13 3 School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, 14 TW20 0EX, U.K. 15 4 Department of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA 99362, U.S.A. 16 5 Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 17 11794-5245, U.S.A. 18 6 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 19 3004, Australia 20 7 School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon 21 Tyne, NE1 7RU, U.K. 22 8 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research 23 Institute, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Room L1288, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada. 24 ORCID IDs 25 Rose E. O’Dea: 0000-0001-8177-5075 26 Malgorzata Lagisz: 0000-0002-3993-6127 27 Michael D. Jennions: 0000-0001-9221-2788 28 Julia Koricheva: 0000-0002-9033-0171 29 Daniel W.A. Noble: 0000-0001-9460-8743 30 Timothy H. Parker: 0000-0003-2995-5284 31 Jessica Gurevitch: 0000-0003-0157-4332 32 Matthew J. Page: 0000-0002-4242-7526 33 Gavin Stewart: 0000-0001-5684-1544 34 David Moher: 0000-0003-2434-4206 35 Shinichi Nakagawa: 0000-0002-7765-5182 36 page 1 Supporting Information: PRISMA-EcoEvo 37 Contents 38 METHODS: DEVELOPMENT OF PRISMA-ECOEVO _______________________________________ 9 39 Formation of the PRISMA-EcoEvo working group ......................................................................... 9 40 Selection of items ......................................................................................................................... 9 41 Consensus on checklist items ....................................................................................................... 10 42 REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________________ 11 43 EXAMPLES FOR EACH ITEM __________________________________________________________ 12 44 ITEM 1: TITLE AND ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. 13 45 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 13 46 Example: Kettenring & Adams (2011) ....................................................................................... 13 47 ITEM 2: AIMS AND QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 14 48 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 14 49 Example: Breed et al. (2015) ..................................................................................................... 15 50 ITEM 3: REVIEW REGISTRATION .......................................................................................... 17 51 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Very low .............................................................. 17 52 Example: Merkling et al. (2018) ................................................................................................ 17 53 ITEM 4: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 18 54 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 18 55 Example: De Boeck et al. (2018) ............................................................................................... 18 56 ITEM 5: FINDING STUDIES .................................................................................................... 19 57 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Moderate .............................................................. 19 58 Example: Davidson et al. (2017) ............................................................................................... 19 59 ITEM 6: STUDY SELECTION .................................................................................................. 20 60 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Very low .............................................................. 20 page 2 Supporting Information: PRISMA-EcoEvo 61 Example: Merkling et al. (2018) ................................................................................................ 20 62 ITEM 7: DATA COLLECTION PROCESS .................................................................................. 21 63 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Low ..................................................................... 21 64 Example: O’Dea et al. (2019) ................................................................................................... 21 65 ITEM 8: DATA ITEMS ............................................................................................................ 22 66 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 22 67 Example: Bateman & Bishop (2017) ......................................................................................... 22 68 ITEM 9: ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL STUDY QUALITY ....................................................... 23 69 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Very low .............................................................. 23 70 Example: Ord et al. (2011) ....................................................................................................... 24 71 ITEM 10: EFFECT SIZE MEASURES ........................................................................................ 24 72 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 24 73 Example: Gorné & Díaz (2017) ............................................................................................... 24 74 ITEM 11: MISSING DATA ...................................................................................................... 25 75 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Low ..................................................................... 25 76 Example: Pearson et al. (2016) .................................................................................................. 25 77 ITEM 12: META-ANALYTIC MODEL DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 26 78 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 26 79 Example: Thomsen et al. (2018) ................................................................................................ 26 80 ITEM 13: SOFTWARE ............................................................................................................ 27 81 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Moderate .............................................................. 27 82 Example: Uller et al. (2013) ..................................................................................................... 27 83 ITEM 14: NON-INDEPENDENCE ............................................................................................ 27 84 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Moderate .............................................................. 27 85 Example: Jiang et al. (2013) ..................................................................................................... 28 86 ITEM 15: META-REGRESSION AND MODEL SELECTION ....................................................... 29 page 3 Supporting Information: PRISMA-EcoEvo 87 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: High .................................................................... 29 88 Example: Des Roches et al. (2018) ............................................................................................ 29 89 ITEM 16: PUBLICATION BIAS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ................................................... 30 90 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Moderate .............................................................. 30 91 Example: Kornder et al. (2018) ................................................................................................. 30 92 ITEM 17: CLARIFICATION OF POST HOC ANALYSES ............................................................... 31 93 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Very low .............................................................. 31 94 Example: Chaplin-Kramer et al. (2011) ..................................................................................... 31 95 ITEM 18: METADATA, DATA, AND CODE .............................................................................. 31 96 Estimated reporting quality across the literature: Moderate .............................................................. 31 97 Example: Kinlock et al. (2018) .................................................................................................