Skip to content

Change in rotated NMDS scores as a response variable

3 messages · Gavin Simpson, gabriel singer, Erik Frenzel

#
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 10:41 -0800, Erik Frenzel wrote:
I'm genuinely underwhelmed by this approach. i) there isn't such a thing
as nMDS axes so does it make sense to take some 1-d coordinate system
out of a 2-d coordinate system and relate it to an external variable? It
would be like trying to identify patterns in all the cities of the world
on the basis of what line of longitude they happened to lie on. Where
this sort of thing does make sense is in methods that do identify
orthogonal components from a data matrix such that axis 1 explains a
component of the variation in the data, and axis 2 another, different
(orthogonal) component of the variation.

If this were me, I would have taken the 2-d nMDS configuration and
fitted a response surface for Whittaker's topographic moisture into the
ordination (using ordisurf) and then take the fitted values of the
response surface for each site as the species-related topographic
moisture "information", which could be plotted as a function of time.

HTH

G

  
    
#
hmmm... I think Gavin?s approach definitely has more power, though I 
don?t quite see why the original idea should not work. Orthogonality is 
not an implicit feature of an NMDS but it?s also not "prevented"...
First, I think quite often NMDS still reproduces/extracts orthogonal 
features of a dataset.
Second, even if NMDS does not care for orthogonality, a "specific" 
feature of the dataset (say, the "moisture information" in herb data) 
can behave more or less linearly or at least monotonic in *any* 
direction on a 2D-plane, in which case the extraction of a rotated axis 
makes complete sense. However, even in this case an ordisurf fit will 
greatly help to understand if that?s a legitimate and reasonable 
approach as I understand.

gabriel
On 3/10/11 1:04 PM, Gavin Simpson wrote: