Jari,

I am here again ... :)
So, to try having a comparison of the real goodness of my metaMDS data I
tried to perform a DCA (with same input table)
Then please forgive me if I do somethign wrong with it... That's my R code:

>decorana(sqrtABCD, iweigh=0, ira=0) -> DCA.1
> DCA.1

Call:
decorana(veg = sqrtABCD, iweigh = 0, ira = 0)

Detrended correspondence analysis with 26 segments.
Rescaling of axes with 4 iterations.

                  DCA1   DCA2   DCA3   DCA4
Eigenvalues     0.6688 0.5387 0.4822 0.3752
Decorana values 0.7912 0.5795 0.4145 0.2931
Axis lengths    5.9974 3.7036 3.6121 3.3802

>

In that situation the graph is still good but the differences between the
two clades are little more confused, maybe in the axe II (I mean the
vertical one) in this case there is a better separation.
What do the "Decorana values" really mean? And how about the segments?

How can I do something better?

Many thank you in advance,

G.

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

