Determining the probability of cyanobacterial blooms: the application of Bayesian networks in multiple lake systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Bayesian network model was developed to assess the combined influence of nutrient conditions and climate on the occurrence of cyanobacterial blooms within lakes of diverse hydrology and nutrient supply. Physicochemical, biological, and meteorological observations were collated from 20 lakes located at different latitudes and characterized by a range of sizes and trophic states. Using these data, we built a Bayesian network to (1) analyze the sensitivity of cyanobacterial bloom development to different environmental factors and (2) determine the probability that cyanobacterial blooms would occur. Blooms were classified in three categories of hazard (low, moderate, and high) based on cell abundances. The most important factors determining cyanobacterial bloom occurrence were water temperature, nutrient availability, and the ratio of mixing depth to euphotic depth. The probability of cyanobacterial blooms was evaluated under different combinations of total phosphorus and water temperature. The Bayesian network was then applied to quantify the probability of blooms under a future climate warming scenario. The probability of the "high hazardous" category of cyanobacterial blooms increased 5% in response to either an increase in water temperature of 0.8°C (initial water temperature above 24°C) or an increase in total phosphorus from 0.01 mg/L to 0.02 mg/L. Mesotrophic lakes were particularly vulnerable to warming. Reducing nutrient concentrations counteracts the increased cyanobacterial risk associated with higher temperatures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".