Model‐Data Fusion to Test Hypothesized Drivers of Lake Carbon Cycling Reveals Importance of Physical Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Formal integration of models and data to test hypotheses about the processes controlling carbon dynamics in lakes is rare, despite the importance of lakes in the carbon cycle. We built a suite of models (n = 102) representing different hypotheses about lake carbon processing, fit these models to data from a north‐temperate lake using data assimilation, and identified which processes were essential for adequately describing the observations. The hypotheses that we tested concerned organic matter lability and its variability through time, temperature dependence of biological decay, photooxidation, microbial dynamics, and vertical transport of water via hypolimnetic entrainment and inflowing density currents. The data included epilimnetic and hypolimnetic CO2 and dissolved organic carbon, hydrologic fluxes, carbon loads, gross primary production, temperature, and light conditions at high frequency for one calibration and one validation year. The best models explained 76–81% and 64–67% of the variability in observed epilimnetic CO2 and dissolved organic carbon content in the validation data. Accurately describing C dynamics required accounting for hypolimnetic entrainment and inflowing density currents, in addition to accounting for biological transformations. In contrast, neither photooxidation nor variable organic matter lability improved model performance. The temperature dependence of biological decay (Q10) was estimated at 1.45, significantly lower than the commonly assumed Q10 of 2. By confronting multiple models of lake C dynamics with observations, we identified processes essential for describing C dynamics in a temperate lake at daily to annual scales, while also providing a methodological roadmap for using data assimilation to further improve understanding of lake C cycling.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".