A morphological trait-based approach to environmental assessment models using diatoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diatom assemblages are excellent indicators for environmental monitoring. However, enumerating diatoms using fine-level taxonomy takes considerable effort, which must be undertaken by specialist taxonomists. One alternative is to enumerate assemblages using morphological traits. In this study, we compared the accuracy of models using 20 morphological traits with those using species assemblages to infer lake water pH, salinity, depth, and total phosphorus concentrations in four data sets, each comprising over 200 lakes. Assemblages aggregated by trait combinations were used to predict environmental variables via weighted averaging regressions, and richness of trait combinations was regressed against the environmental variables. Trait-based weighted averaging regressions showed slightly lower accuracy than species-level analyses and higher accuracy than analyses at the family and sometimes genus level. Richness of trait combinations showed relationships with pH, salinity, and lake depth that were marginally stronger than relationships using species richness. Although species-level analyses are the best approach when time and budgets allow, we suggest that trait combinations could provide an alternative method for water quality assessment programs, where funds do not allow the use of specialist taxonomists or where diatoms are being used as part of a multi-indicator analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".