Lake nutrient stoichiometry is less predictable than nutrient concentrations at regional and sub‐continental scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production in many ecosystems is co-limited by multiple elements. While a known suite of drivers associated with nutrient sources, nutrient transport, and internal processing controls concentrations of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) in lakes, much less is known about whether the drivers of single nutrient concentrations can also explain spatial or temporal variation in lake N:P stoichiometry. Predicting stoichiometry might be more complex than predicting concentrations of individual elements because some drivers have similar relationships with N and P, leading to a weak relationship with their ratio. Further, the dominant controls on elemental concentrations likely vary across regions, resulting in context dependent relationships between drivers, lake nutrients and their ratios. Here, we examine whether known drivers of N and P concentrations can explain variation in N:P stoichiometry, and whether explaining variation in stoichiometry differs across regions. We examined drivers of N:P in ~2,700 lakes at a sub-continental scale and two large regions nested within the sub-continental study area that have contrasting ecological context, including differences in the dominant type of land cover (agriculture vs. forest). At the sub-continental scale, lake nutrient concentrations were correlated with nutrient loading and lake internal processing, but stoichiometry was only weakly correlated to drivers of lake nutrients. At the regional scale, drivers that explained variation in nutrients and stoichiometry differed between regions. In the Midwestern U.S. region, dominated by agricultural land use, lake depth and the percentage of row crop agriculture were strong predictors of stoichiometry because only phosphorus was related to lake depth and only nitrogen was related to the percentage of row crop agriculture. In contrast, all drivers were related to N and P in similar ways in the Northeastern U.S. region, leading to weak relationships between drivers and stoichiometry. Our results suggest ecological context mediates controls on lake nutrients and stoichiometry. Predicting stoichiometry was generally more difficult than predicting nutrient concentrations, but human activity may decouple N and P, leading to better prediction of N:P stoichiometry in regions with high anthropogenic activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".