MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061748448 · doi:10.1890/03-5127

DOES SCALE AFFECT ECOLOGICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS? A TEST WITH LAKE RESPONSES TO FERTILIZATION

2004· article· en· W2061748448 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robyn L. Irvine, Elizabeth E. Crone, Leland J. Jackson, Erland A. MacIsaac

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAkaike information criterionTemporal scalesEnvironmental sciencePrimary productionEcologySpatial ecologyScale (ratio)ProductivitySpatial variabilityEcosystemPhysical geographyStatisticsGeographyBiologyMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecosystem ecologists often face the challenge of predicting long‐term consequences of perturbations such as nutrient enrichment from shorter term experiments. In such experiments, the spatial and temporal scale at which data are analyzed can directly impact extrapolations to larger scales. Here, we assess the level of data resolution required to answer qualitative and quantitative questions about primary production in a set of lake ecosystems. We tested the ability of 40 models containing variable levels of spatial and temporal complexity to (1) fit the relationship between light and primary productivity in a set of 14 British Columbia (Canada) lakes that were part of a large‐scale fertilization experiment, and (2) predict annual primary production. The experimental data had previously been averaged across fertilization treatments for analysis, effectively ignoring spatial and temporal variation. In the limnological literature, data from whole‐lake experiments are often analyzed for each lake to account for among‐lake differences, or analyzed for each lake in each year to account for both lake effect and interannual variation. Using an information‐theoretic approach, we tested these three models (“fertilization status only,” “lake only,” and “lake and year”) against models that included less and more spatial and temporal partitioning of the data. We fit a Monod function to light and primary productivity at 40 spatial and temporal levels of data resolution and ranked the model fits using the second‐order Akaike Information Criterion (AIC c ). The “fertilization status only” model ranked 37th out of 40 models tested, the “lake only” model ranked 27th, and the “lake and year” model ranked 25th. The top‐ranked model partitioned the data by lake, year, fertilization status, season, and sampling station, and fit the data substantially better than other models. We then calculated primary production with independent light data and the fitted model parameters to compare the top three models from our AIC c ranking and the “lake only,” “lake and year,” and “fertilization status only” models. The predicted production differed depending on the model, but all models predicted higher net primary productivity in fertilized lakes. Model selection is therefore important for quantitative predictions, but not necessarily for qualitative assessment of nutrient limitation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207