similar to: gam and ordination (vegan and labdsv surf and ordisurf)

Dear r-helpers, I just read in an article by Virtanen et al. (2006) where vegetation-environment relationships are studied by fitting smoothed surfaces on an NMDS ordination using GAMs (Wood 2000). The authors describe, that they used R? as goodness-of-fit statistic, which they compare to the R? of fitted vectors. Calculations were carried out using the package vegan (Oksanen). I know that I can

I'm having trouble with the ordisurf function in the vegan package. I have created an ordination plot (cmdscale) of 60 samples based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities, and would like to overlay various soil edaphic characteristics as possible clues to the clustering I observe in my plot. However, I find that ordisurf creates a surface on the plot that is a perfect, even gradient - and

Hello I am trying to write a function that would plot timeseries easily... I aim at plotting two time-series on 2 different y axis sharing the same x-axis I succeded in doing so: plotTimeSerie(x,y,y2,[a lot of other args]){ ... plot() axis.POSIXct(side=1) #here I build the x-axis points() #here I plot the first time serie related to y-axis ... axis(side=2,[some args])

Hello, Is there a simple way of stacking/merging two dataframes in R? I want to stack them piece-wise, not simply add one whole dataframe to the bottom of the other. I want to create as follows: x.frame: aX1 bX1 cX1 ... zX1 aX2 bX2 cX2 ... zX2 ... ... ... ... ... aX99 bX99 cX99 ... zX99 y.frame: aY1 bY1 cY1 ... zY1 aY2 bY2 cY2 ... zY2 ... ... ... ... ... aY99 bY99 cY99 ...

Hi All, I'm conducting a meta-analysis and have taken a data.frame with multiple rows per study (for each effect size) and performed a weighted average of effect size for each study. This results in a reduced # of rows. I am particularly interested in simply reducing the additional variables in the data.frame to the first row of the corresponding id variable. For example:

Hi All, I am interested in creating a function that will take x number of lm objects and automate the comparison of each model (using anova). Here is a simple example (the actual function will involve more than what Im presenting but is irrelevant for the example): # sample data: id<-rep(1:20) n<-c(10,20,13,22,28,12,12,36,19,12,36,75,33,121,37,14,40,16,14,20)

Hi All, I was wondering if someone could help me to solve this issue with lmer. In order to understand the best mixed effects model to fit my data, I compared the following options according to the procedures specified in many papers (i.e. Baayen <http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA

When I fit a multivariate linear model, and the formula is defined outside the call to lm(), the method summary.mlm() fails. This works well: > y <- matrix(rnorm(20),nrow=10) > x <- matrix(rnorm(10)) > mod1 <- lm(y~x) > summary(mod1) ... But this does not: > f <- y~x > mod2 <- lm(f) > summary(mod2) Error en object$call$formula[[2L]] <- object$terms[[2L]]

Hi All, I am interested in aggregating a data frame based on 2 categories--mean effect size (r) for each 'id's' 'mod1'. The 'with' function works well when aggregating on one category (e.g., based on 'id' below) but doesnt work if I try 2 categories. How can this be accomplished? # sample data id<-c(1,1,1,rep(4:12)) n<-c(10,20,13,22,28,12,12,36,19,12,

Hi All, I am interested in printing column names without quotes and am struggling to do it properly. The tough part is that I am interested in using these column names for a function within a function (e.g., lm() within a wrapper function). Therefore, cat() doesnt seem appropriate and print() is not what I need. Ideas? # sample data mod1 <- rnorm(20, 10, 2) mod2 <- rnorm(20, 5, 1) dat

Dear List-members, I found a strange behaviour in the lqs function. Suppose I have the following data: y <- c(7.6, 7.7, 4.3, 5.9, 5.0, 6.5, 8.3, 8.2, 13.2, 12.6, 10.4, 10.8, 13.1, 12.3, 10.4, 10.5, 7.7, 9.5, 12.0, 12.6, 13.6, 14.1, 13.5, 11.5, 12.0, 13.0, 14.1, 15.1) x1 <- c(8.2, 7.6,, 4.6, 4.3, 5.9, 5.0, 6.5, 8.3, 10.1, 13.2, 12.6, 10.4, 10.8, 13.1, 13.3, 10.4, 10.5, 7.7, 10.0, 12.0,

Hello, Any advice or pointers for implementing Sobel's test for mediation in 2-level model setting? For fitting the hierarchical models, I am using "lme4" but could also revert to "nlme" since it is a relatively simple varying intercept model and they yield identical estimates. I apologize for this is an R question with an embedded statistical question. I noticed that a

Dear All, Let have 10 pair of observations, as shown below. ###################### x <- 1:10 y <- c(1,3,2,4,5,10,13,15,19,22) plot(x,y) ###################### Two fitted? models, with ranges of [1,5] and [5,10],?can be easily fitted separately by lm function as shown below: ####################### mod1 <- lm(y[1:5] ~ x[1:5]) mod2 <- lm(y[5:10] ~ x[5:10]) #######################

Dear Colleagues, I run this model: mod1 <- lmer(x~category+subcomp+category*subcomp+(1|id),data=impchiefsrm) obtain this summary result: Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML Formula: x ~ category + subcomp + category * subcomp + (1 | id) Data: impchiefsrm AIC BIC logLik MLdeviance REMLdeviance 4102 4670 -1954 3665 3908 Random effects: Groups Name Variance

Dear R-list, I would like to use the lattice library to show several groups on the same graph. Here's my example : ## the data f1 <- factor(c("mod1","mod2","mod3"),levels=c("mod1","mod2","mod3")) f1 <- rep(f1,3) f2 <-

I'm getting lots of grief from reviewers about figures generated with the envfit function in the Vegan package. Has anyone else struggled to effectively explain this analysis? If so, can you share any helpful tips? The most recent comment I've gotten back: "What this shows is which NMDS axis separates the communities, not the relationship between the edaphic factor and the

Hello all, I am about to send off a manuscript and, although I am fairly confident I have used the lme function correctly, I want to be 100% sure. Could some kind soul out there put my mind at ease? I am simply interested in whether a predictor (SPI) is related to height. However, there are five different populations, and each may differ in mean level of height as well as the relationship

Hi R-community, I am doing a PCA and I need plots for different combinations of axes (e.g., PC1 vs PC3, and PC2 vs PC3) with the arrows indicating the loadings of each variables. What I need is exactly what I get using biplot (pca.object) but for other axes. I have plotted PC2 and 3 using the scores of the cases, but I don't get the arrows proportional to the loadings of each variables on

Dear R help, I am trying to work out if I am justified in log-transforming data and specifying Gamma in the same glm. Does it have to be one or the other? I have attached an R script and the datafile to show what I mean. Also, I cannot find a mixed-model that allows Gamma errors (so I cannot find a way of including random effects). What should I do? Many thanks, Pete --------------

Dear R-help members, Apologies - I am posting on behalf of a colleague, who is a little puzzled as STATA and R seem to be yielding different survival estimates for the same dataset when treating a variable as ordinal. Ordered() is used to represent an ordinal variable) I understand that R's coxph (by default) uses the Efron approximation, whereas STATA uses (by default) the Breslow. but we