You have free access to this content

Pluralism and diversity: trends in the use and application of ordination methods 1990-2007

  1. Henrik Von Wehrden1,2,*,
  2. Jan Hanspach3,
  3. Helge Bruelheide1,5,
  4. Karsten Wesche4

Article first published online: 8 JUN 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01063.x

Issue

Journal of Vegetation Science

Journal of Vegetation Science

Volume 20, Issue 4, pages 695–705, August 2009

Additional Information

How to Cite

Von Wehrden, H., Hanspach, J., Bruelheide, H. and Wesche, K. (2009), Pluralism and diversity: trends in the use and application of ordination methods 1990-2007. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20: 695–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01063.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Biology – Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle/Saale, Germany

  2. 2

    Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, Savoyen Strasse 1, Vienna 1160, Austria

  3. 3

    UFZ, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany; E-mail jan.hanspach@ufz.de

  4. 4

    Department of Ecology and Ecosystems Research, A. von Haller Institute of Plant Sciences, Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany; E-mail karsten.wesche@biologie.uni-goettingen.de

  5. 5

    E-mail helge.bruelheide@botanik.uni-halle.de

**Corresponding author; E-mail henrikvonwehrden@web.de

  1. Co-ordinating Editor: M. Chytrý.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 6 JUL 2009
  2. Article first published online: 8 JUN 2009
  3. Received 21 July 2008;Accepted 17 February 2009.

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (346K)

References

  • Anon. (R Development Core Team) 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AT.
  • Austin, M.P. 2005. Vegetation and environment: discontinuities and continuities. In: Van Der Maarel, E. (eds.) Vegetation ecology. pp. 52–84. Blackwell, Malden, US.
  • Bray, R.J. & Curtis, J.T. 1957. An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27: 325–349.
  • Brehm, G. & Fiedler, K. 2004. Ordinating tropical moth samples from an elevational gradient: a comparison of methods. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20: 165–172.
  • Bruelheide, H. 2003. Translocation of a montane meadow to simulate the potential of climate change. Applied Vegetation Science 6: 23–34.
    Direct Link:
  • Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.
    Direct Link:
  • Clarke, K.R. & Gorley, R.N. 2006. PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK.
  • Dixon, P. 2003. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 14: 927–930.
    Direct Link:
  • Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R. & Belbin, L. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57–68.
  • Gilliam, F.S. & Saunders, N.E. 2003. Making more sense of the order: a review of Canoco for Windows 4.5, PC-ORD version 4 and SYN-TAX 2000. Journal of Vegetation Science 14: 297–304.
    Direct Link:
  • Hill, M.O. 1974. Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate method. Journal of Applied Statistics 23: 340–354.
  • Hill, M.O. 1979. DECORANA – A FORTRAN program for Detrended Correspondence Analysis and Reciprocal Averaging. Department of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, US.
  • Hill, M.O. & Gauch, H.G. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis, an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.
  • Hirst, C.N. & Jackson, D.A. 2007. Reconstructing community relationships: the impact of sampling error, ordination approach, and gradient length. Diversity and Distributions 13: 361–371.
    Direct Link:
  • Jackson, D.A. & Somers, K.E. 1991. Putting things in order: the ups and downs of Detrended Correspondence Analysis. American Naturalist 137: 704–712.
  • James, F.C. & McCulloch, C.E. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: Panacea or Pandora's box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 129–166.
  • Jongman, R.H.G., Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Van Tongeren, O.F.R. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Kenkel, N.C. & Orlóci, L. 1986. Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 67: 919–928.
  • Kent, M. & Ballard, J. (1988). Trends and problems in the application of classification and ordination methods in plant ecology. Vegetatio 78: 109–124.
  • Kent, M. & Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis – a practical approach. Belhaven Press, London, UK.
  • Kent, M., Moyeed, R.A., Reid, C.L., Pakeman, R. & Weaver, R. 2006. Geostatistics, spatial rate of change analysis and boundary detection in plant ecology and biogeography. Progress in Physical Geography 30: 201–231.
  • Kovach, W.L. 1998. MVSP – A multivariate statistical package for Windows, version 3.0. Kovach Computing, Pentraeth, UK.
  • Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29: 115–129.
  • Legendre, P. & Anderson, M.J. 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multi-species responses in multi-factorial ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs 69: 1–24.
  • Legendre, P. & Gallagher, E.D. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271–280.
  • Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL.
  • Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • McCune, B. 1997. The influence of noisy environmental data on canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 78: 2617–2623.
  • McCune, B., Grace, J.B. & Urban, D.L. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, CA, US.
  • McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. & Stafford, S. 2000. Multivariate analysis for wildlife and ecological research. Springer, New York, NY, US.
  • Minchin, P.R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69: 89–107.
  • Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
  • Økland, R.H. 1996. Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies? Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 289–292.
    Direct Link:
  • Økland, R.H. 1999. On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 131–136.
    Direct Link:
  • Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P. & O'Hara, B. 2006. vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available at http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/.
  • Palmer, M.W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74: 2215–2230.
  • Pimm, S.L. 2007. Africa: still the “Dark Continent”. Conservation Biology 21: 567–569.
    Direct Link:
  • Podani, J. 2000. Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data. Backhuys Publisher, Leiden, NL.
  • Podani, J. & Miklós, I. 2002. Resemblance coefficients and the horseshoe effect in principal coordinates analysis. Ecology 83: 3331–3343.
  • Ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Vegetatio 69: 69–77.
  • Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. 1998. Canoco reference manual and user's guide for Canoco for Windows. Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, NL.
  • Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. 2002. Canoco 4.5 reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user's guide. Biometris, Wageningen, NL.
  • Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N. & Smith, G.M. 2007. Analysing ecological data. Springer, New York, NY, US.
View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (346K)