Shelly, Yes, I find "indirectly correlated" confusing (and I assume that you do NOT mean negative correlation, which is just as much a correlation as positive correlation). The tree species and the insect abundances are correlated with the axes, not the sites. I suggest keeping descriptions of correlations consistent with that. For example, you may want to describe the correlations between trees and axes, followed by what among-insect associations are driving the structure of the ordination along those axes.
Hope this helps, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear Colleagues, > > I would like to make sure I use the correct language to describe > relationships between: > -field sites > -insect species abundance > -tree species basal area > > I ran an NMS ordination on the insect species within the sites. I > subsequently correlated the tree species to the ordination. As I understand > it, the tree species are correlated to the sites, and only indirectly > correlated to the insect species. > > What language do I use to describe the relationship between the tree species > and the insect species? > -correlated > -indirectly correlated > -associated > -other? > > I am using associated to describe the results of a different kind of > analysis, so I dont want to use it for the NMS and confuse the two kinds of > analyses. > > I previously had indirectly correlated, but some readers found this > confusing. > > Is "correlated" appropriate, even though it is really indirectly correlated? > > What do you suggest? > Thank you, > Shelly > > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends > list. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk > > -- Chris Stallings Department of Zoology Oregon State University 3029 Cordley Hall Corvallis, OR 97331
