Spatial confusion or clarity? Reply to Ricotta & Avena

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This communication is a response to a recent suggestion that ordinal data of the Braun-Blanquet type (BB) can be directly or, after conversion to ranks, indirectly analysed by metric methods. I show that the proposals on structure in topological spaces made by Ricotta & Avena in a recent contribution to this Forum are confounding because (1) they use the term 'topological' in the inappropriate way, and (2) the measure they propose is in fact a metric, rather than merely topological. In addition, I illustrate with a few examples how a truly topological measure functions, so that the reader can appreciate the ideas behind their definitions. By reference to axiomatic measurement theory, I argue that whenever vegetation scientists know exactly at the outset what attributes they wish to express by relevé data, what questions they are asking and whenever they are aware of the basic properties of the BB scale, ordinal data analysis is still the most logical choice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)921-924
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Vegetation Science
Volume18
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2007

Fingerprint

communication (human)
data analysis
vegetation
communication
methodology
method
attribute

Keywords

  • Abundance/dominance data
  • Measurement theory
  • Multivariate analysis
  • Ordinal scale
  • Phytosociology
  • Scale typology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Forestry
  • Plant Science
  • Ecology

Cite this

Spatial confusion or clarity? Reply to Ricotta & Avena. / Podaní, J.

In: Journal of Vegetation Science, Vol. 18, No. 6, 12.2007, p. 921-924.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72e0d6077af64d2bb22f5c2748473843,
title = "Spatial confusion or clarity? Reply to Ricotta & Avena",
abstract = "This communication is a response to a recent suggestion that ordinal data of the Braun-Blanquet type (BB) can be directly or, after conversion to ranks, indirectly analysed by metric methods. I show that the proposals on structure in topological spaces made by Ricotta & Avena in a recent contribution to this Forum are confounding because (1) they use the term 'topological' in the inappropriate way, and (2) the measure they propose is in fact a metric, rather than merely topological. In addition, I illustrate with a few examples how a truly topological measure functions, so that the reader can appreciate the ideas behind their definitions. By reference to axiomatic measurement theory, I argue that whenever vegetation scientists know exactly at the outset what attributes they wish to express by relev{\'e} data, what questions they are asking and whenever they are aware of the basic properties of the BB scale, ordinal data analysis is still the most logical choice.",
keywords = "Abundance/dominance data, Measurement theory, Multivariate analysis, Ordinal scale, Phytosociology, Scale typology",
author = "J. Podan{\'i}",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1658/1100-9233(2007)18[921:SCOCRT]2.0.CO;2",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "921--924",
journal = "Journal of Vegetation Science",
issn = "1100-9233",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spatial confusion or clarity? Reply to Ricotta & Avena

AU - Podaní, J.

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - This communication is a response to a recent suggestion that ordinal data of the Braun-Blanquet type (BB) can be directly or, after conversion to ranks, indirectly analysed by metric methods. I show that the proposals on structure in topological spaces made by Ricotta & Avena in a recent contribution to this Forum are confounding because (1) they use the term 'topological' in the inappropriate way, and (2) the measure they propose is in fact a metric, rather than merely topological. In addition, I illustrate with a few examples how a truly topological measure functions, so that the reader can appreciate the ideas behind their definitions. By reference to axiomatic measurement theory, I argue that whenever vegetation scientists know exactly at the outset what attributes they wish to express by relevé data, what questions they are asking and whenever they are aware of the basic properties of the BB scale, ordinal data analysis is still the most logical choice.

AB - This communication is a response to a recent suggestion that ordinal data of the Braun-Blanquet type (BB) can be directly or, after conversion to ranks, indirectly analysed by metric methods. I show that the proposals on structure in topological spaces made by Ricotta & Avena in a recent contribution to this Forum are confounding because (1) they use the term 'topological' in the inappropriate way, and (2) the measure they propose is in fact a metric, rather than merely topological. In addition, I illustrate with a few examples how a truly topological measure functions, so that the reader can appreciate the ideas behind their definitions. By reference to axiomatic measurement theory, I argue that whenever vegetation scientists know exactly at the outset what attributes they wish to express by relevé data, what questions they are asking and whenever they are aware of the basic properties of the BB scale, ordinal data analysis is still the most logical choice.

KW - Abundance/dominance data

KW - Measurement theory

KW - Multivariate analysis

KW - Ordinal scale

KW - Phytosociology

KW - Scale typology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36749006642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36749006642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1658/1100-9233(2007)18[921:SCOCRT]2.0.CO;2

DO - 10.1658/1100-9233(2007)18[921:SCOCRT]2.0.CO;2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:36749006642

VL - 18

SP - 921

EP - 924

JO - Journal of Vegetation Science

JF - Journal of Vegetation Science

SN - 1100-9233

IS - 6

ER -