Thank you very much for those useful informations. I've been reading some
papers and actually different people will use different ordination methods
also if the studies are very alike. So I will keep metaMDS for the moment
and see if my results are interpretable :)
--
View this message in contex
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 03:36 -0700, swertie wrote:
> Thank you very much. I am just concerned because I wonder if I used the best
> method. I have presence/absence data. With isoMDS I can specify
> "Bray-Curtis" distance method, which is adequate, but I was not sure of the
> method used by metaMDS.
Thank you very much. I am just concerned because I wonder if I used the best
method. I have presence/absence data. With isoMDS I can specify
"Bray-Curtis" distance method, which is adequate, but I was not sure of the
method used by metaMDS. I think that it is Euclidian distance. Can I use it
for p
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 04:49 -0700, swertie wrote:
> Hello, I read a lot about ordination, but I am still confused... I have data
> on species presence/absence for 8 different sites and I would like to
> represent my species and the sites on an ordination plot to see if some
> species are associated
Hello, I read a lot about ordination, but I am still confused... I have data
on species presence/absence for 8 different sites and I would like to
represent my species and the sites on an ordination plot to see if some
species are associated with specific sites. I used metaMDS function, which
disp
5 matches
Mail list logo
