Site scores and conditional biplots in canonical correspondence analysis

Environmetrics

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 67-80

  Graffelman, Jan ^a   Tuft, Robyn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b Robyn Tuft and Associates   (Australia)

Author keywords

Biplot; Correspondence analysis; Gradient analysis; LC scores; Supplementary point; WA scores

Indexed keywords

CANONICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 1642423845     PISSN: 11804009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/env.629     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Böckenholt U, Takane Y. 1994. Linear constraints in correspondence analysis. In Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences, Greenacre M, Blasius J (eds). Academic Press; 112-127.
2. Gabriel KR. 1995. Biplot display of multivariate categorical data, with comments on multiple correspondence analysis. In Recent Advances in Descriptive Multivariate Analysis. Krzanowski WJ (ed.). 190-226.
3. Graffelman J. 2000. Contributions to the Multivariate Analysis of Marine Environmental Monitoring Data: Methodological Aspects and Applications. PhD thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
4. Graffelman J. 2001. Quality statistics in canonical correspondence analysis. Environmetrics, 12(5): 485-497.
5. Graffelman J, Aluja Banet T. 2003. Optimal representation of supplementary variables in biplots from principal component analysis and correspondence analysis. Biometrical Journal 45(4): 491-509.
6. Greenacre MJ. 1993a. Biplots in correspondence analysis. Journal of Applied Statistics 20(2): 251-269.
7. Greenacre MJ. 1993b. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Academic Press.
8. Johnson KW, Altman NS. 1999. Canonical correspondence analysis as an approximation to Gaussian ordination. Environmetrics 10(1): 39-52.
9. Magnus JR, Neudecker H. 1994. Matrix Differential Calculus with Applications in Statistics and Econometrics. John Wiley.
10. McCune B. 1997. Influence of noisy environmental data on canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 78(8): 2617-2623.
11. Palmer MW. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74(8): 2215-2230.
12. Sabatier R, Lebreton J, Chessel D. 1989. Principal component analysis with instrumental variables as a tool for modelling composition data. In Multiway Data Analysis, vol. 26, pp. 341-352. Coppi R, Bolasco S (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers: North-Holland.
13. Stevenson AC, Birks HJB, Flower RJ, Battarbee RW. 1989. Diatom-based pH reconstruction of lake acidification using canonical correspondence analysis. Ambio 18(4): 228-233.
14. Takane Y. 1991. Relationships among several methods of linearly constrained correspondence analysis. Psychometrika 56(4): 667-684.
15. Ter Braak CJF. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67(5): 1167-1179.
16. Ter Braak CJF. 1987. Ordination. In Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology, Jongman RHG, Ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (eds). Wageningen, The Netherlands. Pudoc; 91-173.
17. Ter Braak CJF. 1988. Canoco-a Fortran Program for Canonical Community Ordination by [Partial] [Detrended] [Canonical] Correspondence Analysis, Principal Components Analysis and Redundancy Analysis (Version 2.1). Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
18. Ter Braak CJF. 1994. Canonical community ordination. Part 1. Basic theory and linear methods. Écoscience 1(2): 127-140.
19. Ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research 18: 271-317.
20. Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows, version 4.0. Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
21. Tuft R, Rooney WS, Pyke G. 2000. Aquatic Bioindicator Survey for Hornsby Shire Council. Technical Report, Canonical Solutions, Sydney, Australia.