Optimizing taxonomic resolution and sampling effort to design cost‐effective ecological models for environmental assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Predictive models relating ecological assemblages to environmental conditions are widely used in environmental impact assessment and biomonitoring. Such models are often parameterized using comprehensive ecological sampling and taxonomic identification efforts. Limited resources mean that expensive sampling and analytical procedures should be planned to maximize information gain and minimize unnecessary expense. However, there has been little consideration of cost‐effectiveness in parameterizing predictive models using ecological assemblages and no explicit consideration of cost‐effectiveness in balancing investment in the crucial aspects of sample size and taxonomic resolution. Using lacustrine diatom (Bacillariophyceae) assemblages from four large‐scale (c. 77 000–1·3 million km2) data sets containing between 207 and 493 lakes, we address the following questions: (1) how does taxonomic resolution affect information content; (2) how does sample size affect information content for different taxonomic resolutions; and (3) what are the most cost‐effective strategies for constructing environmental assessment models using diatom assemblages across a range of budgets? We use weighted averaging regression models for pH, phosphorus, salinity and lake depth and realistic data collection costs to examine the relationship between cost and model information content (R2 and root mean squared error of prediction). For diatom‐based models, finer taxonomic resolutions almost always provide more cost‐effective information content than collecting more samples, with (morpho)species being the most appropriate taxonomic resolution for nearly all budget scenarios. Information content exhibits an asymptotic relationship with sample size and budget, with greatest information gain during initial sample size increases, and little gain beyond c. 100 samples. Smaller sample sizes can also achieve surprising predictive power in some cases, suggesting low‐cost regional models may be achievable. However, caution is necessary in such an approach, because spatial dependencies in predictions may be missed and analogues with predicted assemblages may be poor. Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate the utility of explicitly considering cost estimates to determine optimal sampling effort and taxonomic resolution for ecological assemblage models. For large, regional biomonitoring programmes, cost‐effective sampling could save millions of dollars. Our framework for determining optimal trade‐offs in ecological assemblage models is easily adaptable to other taxa and analytical techniques used in biomonitoring and environmental assessment.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".