Human activities cause distinct dissolved organic matter composition across freshwater ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissolved organic matter (DOM) composition in freshwater ecosystems is influenced by the interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes that are controlled, at one level, by watershed landscape, hydrology, and their connections. Against this environmental template, humans may strongly influence DOM composition. Yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of DOM composition variation across freshwater ecosystems differentially affected by human activity. Using optical properties, we described DOM variation across five ecosystem groups of the Laurentian Great Lakes region: large lakes, Kawartha Lakes, Experimental Lakes Area, urban stormwater ponds, and rivers (n = 184 sites). We determined how between ecosystem variation in DOM composition related to watershed size, land use and cover, water quality measures (conductivity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), nutrient concentration, chlorophyll a), and human population density. The five freshwater ecosystem groups had distinctive DOM composition from each other. These significant differences were not explained completely through differences in watershed size nor spatial autocorrelation. Instead, multivariate partial least squares regression showed that DOM composition was related to differences in human impact across freshwater ecosystems. In particular, urban/developed watersheds with higher human population densities had a unique DOM composition with a clear anthropogenic influence that was distinct from DOM composition in natural land cover and/or agricultural watersheds. This nonagricultural, human developed impact on aquatic DOM was most evident through increased levels of a microbial, humic-like parallel factor analysis component (C6). Lotic and lentic ecosystems with low human population densities had DOM compositions more typical of clear water to humic-rich freshwater ecosystems but C6 was only present at trace to background levels. Consequently, humans are strongly altering the quality of DOM in waters nearby or flowing through highly populated areas, which may alter carbon cycles in anthropogenically disturbed ecosystems at broad scales.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".