MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920399446 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-40349-4

The prevalence of nonlinearity and detection of ecological breakpoints across a land use gradient in streams

2019· article· en· W2920399446 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah C. D’Amario, Daniel C. Rearick, Christina Fasching, Steven W. Kembel, Emily Porter-Goff, Daniel E. Spooner, Clayton J. Williams, Henry F. Wilson, Marguerite A. Xenopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité du Québec à MontréalTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSTREAMSWatershedBreakpointEnvironmental scienceWetlandEcologyNutrientEcosystemDissolved organic carbonLand coverLand useHydrology (agriculture)BiologyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human activities can alter aquatic ecosystems through the input of nutrients and carbon, but there is increasing evidence that these pressures induce nonlinear ecological responses. Nonlinear relationships can contain breakpoints where there is an unexpected change in an ecological response to an environmental driver, which may result in ecological regime shifts. We investigated the occurrence of nonlinearity and breakpoints in relationships between total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), and total dissolved carbon (DOC) concentrations and ecological responses in streams with varying land uses. We calculated breakpoints using piecewise regression, two dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov (2DKS), and significant zero crossings (SiZer) methods. We found nonlinearity was common, occurring in half of all analyses, with some evidence of multiple breakpoints. Linearity, by contrast, occurred in less than 14% of cases, on average. Breakpoints were related to land use gradients, with 34-43% agricultural cover associated with DOC and TDN breakpoints, and 15% wetland and 9.5% urban land associated with DOC and nutrient breakpoints, respectively. While these breakpoints are likely specific to our study area, our study contributes to the growing literature of the prevalence and location of ecological breakpoints in streams, providing watershed managers potential criteria for catchment land use thresholds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207