Hey,
Indeed, I agree with John that it is rather suspicious that your first factor explains 100 % of the marginality and the specialization. My gues would be that there is a problem with the variables not being continuous enough, as continuous and normally distributed variables are one of the key requirements for an ENFA analysis. Can't you try to make them more continuous, for example by performing a roving window analysis on the non-continuous maps? Or use distance to some habitat features rather than their presence? Somewhere on the BIOMAPPER help page their is some information on converting (near) categorical data into continuous ones.
Hope this helps,
Diederik
On 4/23/2012 10:13 PM, John Clark wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much into the EGV being the inverse of suitability for the time being. That your first factor explains 100% of both marginality and specialization, and that 11 of 15 EGVs were not continuous enough and yielded large eigenvalues, indicate there may be a significant issue with the EGV's. You might want to take a closer look at them before focusing on mapping/validation. What sort of information were you interpreting from the photos? I'm by no means an expert, but unfortunately this list-serve is very quiet.
Best Regards,
John Clark
-- Dr.Diederik Strubbe Evolutionary Ecology Group Department of Biology University of Antwerp Middelheimcampus GV310 Groenenborgerlaan 171 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium office: +32 3 265 3282 mobile phone: +32 477445568 skype user name: lakrinn
------------------------------
Biomapper FAQ: http://www.unil.ch/faq.html
Wiki-Biomapper: http://biomapper.wikispaces.com/
If you found this message useful, please consider copying it to the Wiki-Biomapper
------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.