Can we trust gradients extracted by Detrended Correspondence Analysis

86 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Niche characteristics of Danish woody species as derived from coenoclines (2002, methodology): “…problems: visual judgement of skewness (Økland 1986a) is subjective; 3rd-degree polynomials (Austin et al. 1990) have unrealistic shapes; and smoothing by generalized additive models (GAM, Hastie & Tibshirani 1990; Yee & Mitchell 1991; Bio et al. 1998; Ejrnæs 2000) requires subjective assessment.”
A 250 year comparison of historical, macrofossil and pollen records of aquatic plants in a shallow lake (2005, background): “DCA was appropriate here as it has been shown to be robust in elucidating the major gradients in plant compositional data even where taxa display non-symmetrical unimodal responses to the underlying gradient (Ejrnæs, 2000).”
Distribution patterns of tropical woody species in response to climatic and edaphic gradients (2012, background): “For example, Ejrnæs (2000) found that 53% of temperate species, from grassland vegetation samples located in Denmark, responded to a pH gradient (3.8–8.6).”
Nonparametric Multiplicative Regression for Habitat Modeling (2011, methodology): “Generalized additive models (GAMs; Hastie 1990) are becoming increasingly popular for habitat modeling (e.g., Bio et al. 1998; Bowman and Azzalini 1997; Erjnaes 2000; Heegaard 2002a, 2002b; Leathwick 1995; Yee & Mitchell 1991; Zaniewski et al. 2002).”