Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Whittaker (1960)
Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and CaliforniaEcological Monographs, 30
Minchin Minchin (1987)
An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordinationVegetatio, 69
Robert Peet, Robert Knox, J. Case, R. Allen (1988)
Putting Things in Order: The Advantages of Detrended Correspondence AnalysisThe American Naturalist, 131
H. Gauch, R. Whittaker (1981)
Hierarchical Classification of Community DataJournal of Ecology, 69
M. Hill (1974)
Correspondence Analysis: A Neglected Multivariate MethodJournal of The Royal Statistical Society Series C-applied Statistics, 23
Austin (1987)
Models for the analysis of species' response to environmental gradientsVegetatio, 69
N. Kenkel, L. Orlóci (1986)
Applying Metric and Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling to Ecological Studies: Some New ResultsEcology, 67
Gauch Gauch, Whittaker Whittaker (1976)
Simulation of community patternsVegetatio, 33
Knox Knox, Peet Peet (1989)
Bootstrapped ordination: a method for estimating sampling effects in indirect gradient analysisVegetatio, 80
M. Austin (1987)
Models for the analysis of species’ response to environmental gradientsPlant Ecology, 69
Hill Hill, Gauch Gauch (1980)
Detrended correspondence analysis, an improved ordination techniqueVegetatio, 42
Gauch Gauch, Whittaker Whittaker (1972)
Coenocline simulationEcology, 53
Scott, Ferson, F., James Rohlf (1987)
Putting Things in Order: A Critique of Detrended Correspondence AnalysisThe American Naturalist, 129
Austin (1980)
Searching for a model for use in a vegetation analysisVegetatio, 42
Oksanen Oksanen (1988)
A note on the occasional instability of detrending in correspondence analysisVegetatio, 74
Abstract. Simulated vegetation data of known structure and varying complexity were analyzed with Correspondence Analysis (CA), Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA), and a polythetic divisive method of classification as incorporated in the computer program TWINSPAN. The CA and DCA axes were statistically compared with the original gradients. In the case of TWINSPAN, the results were visually evaluated. The analyses showed that both CA and DCA will recover the first vegetation gradient in an acceptable manner only if the variation in the vegetation due to second or higher order gradients is small. Second gradients were never recovered in a meaningful manner. The sample points along these axes were so far displaced from their original positions along the gradients that the axes could not be used to represent the gradients. In particular, when the two gradients have the same length, CA and DCA gave very poor results for both the first and the second axes. This is thought to be one of the main reasons why TWINSPAN does not perform well, especially after the first division.
Journal of Vegetation Science – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 1992
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.