Joris, On 14/06/2012, at 17:39 PM, Joris Meys wrote: > Hi all, > > > I get results that differ from the table given by ter Braak. I can explain > the differences in sign (that's normal, as the solution of cca is defined > up to the sign), and I can believe there would be small differences as > we're talking different ways of estimation, but the canonical coefficients > for the second axis differ substantially. > > My question : > > - Did I use the correct methods to extract what ter Braak calls "canonical > coefficients" and "correlation coefficients"? > - is there a logical explanation for the big difference in some results ? > I haven't checked that paper, and can't do that for several days. However, one essential difference in "canonical" coefficients between Canoco and vegan::cca is that Canoco standardizes all constraining variables to unit variance whereas vegan uses unstandardized variables. Does it help if you use
Model <- cca(hs.spec ~ ., data = scale(hs.ev)) ? Cheers, Jari Oksanen -- Jari Oksanen, Dept Biology, Univ Oulu, 90014 Finland jari.oksa...@oulu.fi, Ph. +358 400 408593, http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa _______________________________________________ R-sig-ecology mailing list R-sig-ecology@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-ecology
