Creating multithemed ecological regions for macroscale ecology: Testing a flexible, repeatable, and accessible clustering method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding broad‐scale ecological patterns and processes often involves accounting for regional‐scale heterogeneity. A common way to do so is to include ecological regions in sampling schemes and empirical models. However, most existing ecological regions were developed for specific purposes, using a limited set of geospatial features and irreproducible methods. Our study purpose was to: (1) describe a method that takes advantage of recent computational advances and increased availability of regional and global data sets to create customizable and reproducible ecological regions, (2) make this algorithm available for use and modification by others studying different ecosystems, variables of interest, study extents, and macroscale ecology research questions, and (3) demonstrate the power of this approach for the research question—How well do these regions capture regional‐scale variation in lake water quality? To achieve our purpose we: (1) used a spatially constrained spectral clustering algorithm that balances geospatial homogeneity and region contiguity to create ecological regions using multiple terrestrial, climatic, and freshwater geospatial data for 17 northeastern U.S. states (~1,800,000 km2); (2) identified which of the 52 geospatial features were most influential in creating the resulting 100 regions; and (3) tested the ability of these ecological regions to capture regional variation in water nutrients and clarity for ~6,000 lakes. We found that: (1) a combination of terrestrial, climatic, and freshwater geospatial features influenced region creation, suggesting that the oft‐ignored freshwater landscape provides novel information on landscape variability not captured by traditionally used climate and terrestrial metrics; and (2) the delineated regions captured macroscale heterogeneity in ecosystem properties not included in region delineation—approximately 40% of the variation in total phosphorus and water clarity among lakes was at the regional scale. Our results demonstrate the usefulness of this method for creating customizable and reproducible regions for research and management applications.
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 | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".