Improving the precision of lake ecosystem metabolism estimates by identifying predictors of model uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diel changes in dissolved oxygen are often used to estimate gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) in aquatic ecosystems. Despite the widespread use of this approach to understand ecosystem metabolism, we are only beginning to understand the degree and underlying causes of uncertainty for metabolism model parameter estimates. Here, we present a novel approach to improve the precision and accuracy of ecosystem metabolism estimates by identifying physical metrics that indicate when metabolism estimates are highly uncertain. Using datasets from seventeen instrumented GLEON (Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network) lakes, we discovered that many physical characteristics correlated with uncertainty, including PAR (photosynthetically active radiation, 400–700 nm), daily variance in Schmidt stability, and wind speed. Low PAR was a consistent predictor of high variance in GPP model parameters, but also corresponded with low ER model parameter variance. We identified a threshold (30% of clear sky PAR) below which GPP parameter variance increased rapidly and was significantly greater in nearly all lakes compared with variance on days with PAR levels above this threshold. The relationship between daily variance in Schmidt stability and GPP model parameter variance depended on trophic status, whereas daily variance in Schmidt stability was consistently positively related to ER model parameter variance. Wind speeds in the range of ~0.8‐3 m s−1 were consistent predictors of high variance for both GPP and ER model parameters, with greater uncertainty in eutrophic lakes. Our findings can be used to reduce ecosystem metabolism model parameter uncertainty and identify potential sources of that uncertainty.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".