Winter Precipitation and Summer Temperature Predict Lake Water Quality at Macroscales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change can have strong effects on aquatic ecosystems, including disrupting nutrient cycling and mediating processes that affect primary production. Past studies have been conducted mostly on individual or small groups of ecosystems, making it challenging to predict how future climate change will affect water quality at broad scales. We used a subcontinental‐scale database to address three objectives: (1) identify which climate metrics best predict lake water quality, (2) examine whether climate influences different nutrient and productivity measures similarly, and (3) quantify the potential effects of a changing climate on lakes. We used climate data to predict lake water quality in ~11,000 north temperate lakes across 17 U.S. states. We developed a novel machine learning method that jointly models different measures of water quality using 48 climate metrics and accounts for properties inherent in macroscale data (e.g. , spatial autocorrelation). Our results suggest that climate metrics related to winter precipitation and summer temperature were strong predictors of lake nutrients and productivity. However, we found variation in the magnitude and direction of the relationship between climate and water quality. We predict that a likely future climate change scenario of warmer summer temperatures will lead to increased nutrient concentrations and algal biomass across lakes (median ~3%–9% increase), whereas increased winter precipitation will have highly variable effects. Our results emphasize the importance of heterogeneity in the response of individual ecosystems to climate and are a caution to extrapolating relationships across space.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".