摘要 : Due to concerns about data quality, McKechnie, Coe, Gerson, and Wolf (2016) questioned the conclusions of our study (Khaliq et al.,2015) published in this journal. Here, we argue that most of the questioned data points are in fact... 展开 Due to concerns about data quality, McKechnie, Coe, Gerson, and Wolf (2016) questioned the conclusions of our study (Khaliq et al.,2015) published in this journal. Here, we argue that most of the questioned data points are in fact useful for macrophysiological analyses, mostly because the vast majority of data are explicitly reported in the peer-reviewed physiological literature. Furthermore, we show that our conclusions remain largely robust irrespective of the data inclusion criterion. While we think that constructive debates about the adequate use of primary data in meta-studies as well as more transparency in data inclusion criteria are indeed useful, we also emphasize that data suitability should be evaluated in the light of the scope and scale of the study in which they are used. We hope that this discussion will not discourage the exchange between disciplines such as biogeography and physiology, as this integration is needed to address some of the most urgent scientific challenges. 收起