Submitted to: Ecology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 5/17/2019
Publication Date: 7/8/2019
Citation: Rinella, M.J., Reinhart, K.O. 2019. Toward more robust plant-soil feedback research: reply. Ecology. 100(9):e02810. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2810.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2810

Interpretive Summary: Rinella and Reinhart (2018) discuss problems with methods of Teste et al. (2017), while Teste et al. (2019) assert their methods were unproblematic. Here we start out by showing that a method of Teste et al. (2017) and many similar studies represents a strong departure from established scientific practice. We (Reinhart and Rinella 2016, Rinella and Reinhart 2017) and others (Smith-Ramesh and Reynolds 2017) have already warned about the method in question, and Rinella and Reinhart (2018) reiterate the warning and discuss additional concerns regarding Teste et al. (2017). Unfortunately, in addition to Teste et al. (2019), other groups have published confused rebuttals to our warning (Cahill et al. 2017, Gundale et al. 2017, Gundale et al. 2019), thereby slowing the return to reliable scientific practice. We share blame for this, because our explanations of the problem have relied on unnecessarily complicated computer simulations and statistical examples. Therefore, we appreciate this chance to explain the problem more simply and clearly. After discussing the methodological problem that Teste et al. (2017) and many other studies hold in common, we discuss other aspects of the Teste et al. (2019) response to Rinella and Reinhart (2018).complicated computer simulations and statistical examples. Therefore, we appreciate this chance to explain the problem more simply and clearly. After discussing the methodological problem that Teste et al. (2017) and many other studies hold in common, we discuss other aspects of the Teste et al. (2019) response to Rinella and Reinhart (2018).

Technical Abstract: Rinella and Reinhart (2018) discuss problems with methods of Teste et al. (2017), while Teste et al. (2019) assert their methods were unproblematic. Here we start out by showing that a methodological detail of Teste et al. (2017) and many other plant-soil feedback studies represents a profound departure from established scientific practice. We (Reinhart and Rinella 2016, Rinella and Reinhart 2017) and others (Smith-Ramesh and Reynolds 2017) have already warned about the method in question, and Rinella and Reinhart (2018) reiterate the warning and discuss additional concerns regarding Teste et al. (2017). Unfortunately, in addition to Teste et al. (2019), other groups have published confused rebuttals to our warning (Cahill et al. 2017, Gundale et al. 2017, Gundale et al. 2019), thereby slowing the return to reliable scientific practice. We share blame for this, because our explanations of the problem have relied on unnecessarily complicated computer simulations and statistical examples. Therefore, we appreciate this chance to explain the problem more simply and clearly. After discussing the methodological problem that Teste et al. (2017) and many other studies hold in common, we discuss other aspects of the Teste et al. (2019) response to Rinella and Reinhart (2018).