Gillet
[francois.gil...@univ-fcomte.fr]
Date d'envoi : samedi 20 avril 2013 10:59
À : Gavin Simpson
Cc: Aurélie Boissezon; r-sig-ecology@r-project.org
Objet : Re: [R-sig-eco] RE : CCA vs NMDS and ordisurf
2013/4/19 Gavin Simpson
gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk
I
...@gmail.com [fgill...@gmail.com] de la part de François Gillet
[francois.gil...@univ-fcomte.fr]
Date d'envoi : samedi 20 avril 2013 10:59
À : Gavin Simpson
Cc: Aurélie Boissezon; r-sig-ecology@r-project.org
Objet : Re: [R-sig-eco] RE : CCA vs NMDS and ordisurf
2013/4/19 Gavin Simpson
2013/4/19 Gavin Simpson gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk
I really don't see why this has to be an either/or situation.
I fully agree: direct and indirect gradient analyses are complementary!
Sorry for not having stressed that in my short answers...
François
[[alternative HTML version
-sig-ecology-boun...@r-project.org]
de la part de Pierre THIRIET [pierre.d.thir...@gmail.com]
Date d'envoi : jeudi 18 avril 2013 14:52
À : r-sig-ecology@r-project.org
Objet : Re: [R-sig-eco] CCA vs NMDS and ordisurf
Dear Aurélie,
About the dissimilarity measures and data you used:
Bray-curtis
A lot of questions, some responses below...
2013/4/19 Aurélie Boissezon aurelie.boisse...@unige.ch
The main purpose is to understand how disturbance gradient affect the
composition of the macrophyte community, in particular the distribution of
Charophytes (V3 mission in Anderson et al 2011).
A contrary view in-lined below:
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 15:19 +0200, François Gillet wrote:
A lot of questions, some responses below...
snip /
Why not explore unconstrained ordination methods and went further with
NMDS (V2 mission in Anderson et al 2011)?
Just because your purpose is to
