Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeWhat about natives? And direct versus indirect correlations?
Posted by jebyrnes on 26 Dec 2006 at 16:24 GMT
At both scales, areas with more structures had more exotic bird species
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000063#article1.body1.sec2.p8
It is unclear whether the trends in species richness were entirely driven exotic species. If there is indeed no correlation with native species, then the story here becomes quite a bit more interesting. Similarly, to tease out direct correlations, versus apparent correlations driven by indirect effects, a path analysis or structural equation modelling approach here would have been far more appropriate than just looking at correlation coefficients. This would be particularly important if you want to look at native versus non-native diversity?
RE: What about natives? And direct versus indirect correlations?
dhaskell replied to jebyrnes on 22 Apr 2009 at 15:02 GMT
When the analyses are run without exotics, the same conclusions are reached. As seen in Table S1, exotics had minimal effects on overall richness.