5
$\begingroup$

I just ran a non metric multidimensional scaling model (nmds) which compared multiple locations based on benthic invertebrate species composition. After running the analysis, I used the vector fitting technique to see how the resulting ordination would relate to some environmental variables.

My first question is: I got an R squared value of .18 for a variable representing "depth" at a site. It has the highest R square value of any environmental variable by far (the rest are less than 0.07) and is the only variable which is significant at the alpha=0.05 level. I'm wondering if there are any thresholds for how much variance explained, is a good amount. I know it might depend on the scientific discipline, I've heard things like 30% for ecology, but I can't track down a reference for this.

My second question is, am I right in saying that for this case the % of variance explained, is the % of variance in the depth data explained by the nmds ordination axes? Thanks!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

I wouldn't place much stock in "rules of thumb" such as this. It is dependent upon so many things such as the number of variables, the number of sites, what dissimilarity you use etc. Also note that the vector fitting approach is inherently linear and we have no reason to presume that the relationship between the variable and the NMDS configuration is linear.

The key thing is that it is a small/modest correlation but that it is significant. But you probably want to look at the linearity assumption.

In the vegan package for R we have function ordisurf() for this. It fits a 2-d surface to an NMDS solution using a GAM via function gam() in package mgcv. It essentially fits the model

$$g(\mu_i) = \eta_i = \beta_0 + f(nmds_{1i}, nmds_{2i})$$

where $f$ is a 2-d smooth function of the 1st and 2nd axes of the NMDS, $g$ is the link function, $\mu$ the expectation of the response, and $\eta$ is the linear predictor. The error distribution is a member of the exponential family of distributions. The function $f$ can be isotropic in which case we use smooths formed by s() employing by default thin plate splines. Anisotropic surfaces can be fitted too, where we use smooths formed by te(); tensor product smooths.

The complexity of the smooth is chosen during fitting using a, by default in the development versions, REML criterion. GCV smoothness selection is also available.

Here is an R example using one of the in-built data sets provided with vegan

require("vegan")
data(dune)
data(dune.env)

## fit NMDS using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity (default)
set.seed(12)
sol <- metaMDS(dune)

## NMDS plot
plot(sol)
## Fit and add the 2d surface
sol.s <- ordisurf(sol ~ A1, data = dune.env, method = "REML", 
                  select = TRUE)
## look at the fitted model
summary(sol.s)

This produces

> summary(sol.s)

Family: gaussian 
Link function: identity 

Formula:
y ~ s(x1, x2, k = knots[1], bs = bs[1])
<environment: 0x2fb78a0>

Parametric coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)   4.8500     0.4105   11.81 9.65e-10 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Approximate significance of smooth terms:
           edf Ref.df     F p-value  
s(x1,x2) 1.591      9 0.863  0.0203 *
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

R-sq.(adj) =   0.29   Deviance explained =   35%
REML score = 41.587  Scale est. = 3.3706    n = 20

and

enter image description here

In this case a linear vector fit seems reasonable for this variable. Read ?ordisurf for details on the arguments used, especially what select = TRUE does.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ what if the variables turn out not to be linear? What are the next steps? (1. move forward with caution, 2. drop from analysis, 3. transform, 4. other?...) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 22:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @theforestecologist if it isn't linear, then you can just use the GAM fit returned by ordisurf(), which is an object of class "gam" as fitted by the gam() function in package mgcv. The summary() method for those objects returns information on the statistical; significance of the estimated surface, so I would report that in place of the output from envfit() for the non-linear variables. If you want to move on to fit a constrained ordination using a non-linear effect of the covariate on the multivariate response, that becomes more difficult but could be done with splines also $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2023 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Two follow-up questions: (1) is the R2 from summary.ordisurf comparable to the R2 from envfit? -- in other words, can I place them in the same table column showing strength of correlation for both linear and non-linear variables together? (2) is there a quick, non-visual way to determine if a relationship is non-linear without needing to plot and observe all variable contours of interest? (e.g., something from the summary output that might be used as a codable quantitative measure? ) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ @theforestecologist 1) the R2 is not directly comparable because the one in the GAM is an adjusted R2, accounting for the complexity of the model fit. 2) the EDF column (edf) would do that; without select = TRUE, a linear surface would have 2 effective degrees of freedom (EDF), where the EDF > 2 the surface is non-linear. When select = TRUE this is not true however and it makes the EDF less easily interpretable in the manner you would like. If the surface is non-linear, you should be able to see it in the contour plot, too $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ is there a way to convert the adjusted R2 to be comparable to the envfit R2? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 22:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.