Ecosystem respiration: Drivers of daily variability and background respiration in lakes around the globe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assembled data from a global network of automated lake observatories to test hypotheses regarding the drivers of ecosystem metabolism. We estimated daily rates of respiration and gross primary production (GPP) for up to a full year in each lake, via maximum likelihood fits of a free‐water metabolism model to continuous high‐frequency measurements of dissolved oxygen concentrations. Uncertainties were determined by a bootstrap analysis, allowing lake‐days with poorly constrained rate estimates to be down‐weighted in subsequent analyses. GPP and respiration varied considerably among lakes and at seasonal and daily timescales. Mean annual GPP and respiration ranged from 0.1 to 5.0 mg O 2 L −1 d −1 and were positively related to total phosphorus but not dissolved organic carbon concentration. Within lakes, significant day‐to‐day differences in respiration were common despite large uncertainties in estimated rates on some lake‐days. Daily variation in GPP explained 5% to 85% of the daily variation in respiration after temperature correction. Respiration was tightly coupled to GPP at a daily scale in oligotrophic and dystrophic lakes, and more weakly coupled in mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes. Background respiration ranged from 0.017 to 2.1 mg O 2 L −1 d −1 and was positively related to indicators of recalcitrant allochthonous and autochthonous organic matter loads, but was not clearly related to an indicator of the quality of allochthonous organic matter inputs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".