 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:32:28 -0400 |
| MIME-version: |
1.0 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Content-type: |
multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_UxOmwSL54OSFTTx9xvijbg)" |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Organization: |
Stony Brook University |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
See:
Wartenberg, D., S. Ferson, and F. J. Rohlf. 1987. Putting Things in Order -
a Critique of Detrended Correspondence-Analysis. American Naturalist
129:434-448.
That paper basically points out that the method (at least at that time) does
nothing but to hide the arch of the horseshoe. It does not change the
ordering of points along the first axis - it just changes the scatter along
the second axis so one does not see the arch.
Jim
----------------------
F. James Rohlf, Distinguished Professor
Dept. Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, NY 11794-5245
From: Classification, clustering, and phylogeny estimation
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shannon, William
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question for the list
What can people tell us about Detrended Correspondence Analysis
Thank you
Bill Shannon, PhD
Associate Prof. of Biostatistics in Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
660 South Euclid Ave, Box 8005
St. Louis, MO 63110
[log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------- CLASS-L list. Instructions:
http://www.classification-society.org/csna/lists.html#class-l
----------------------------------------------
CLASS-L list.
Instructions: http://www.classification-society.org/csna/lists.html#class-l
|
|
|
