Percent ash‐free dry weight as a robust method to estimate energy density across taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Determining how energy flows through ecosystems reveals underlying ecological patterns that drive processes such as growth and food web dynamics. Models that assess the transfer of energy from producers to consumers require information on the energy content or energy density (ED) of prey species. ED is most accurately measured through bomb calorimetry, but this method suffers from limitations of cost, time, and sample requirements that often make it unrealistic for many studies. Percent dry weight (DW) is typically used as a proxy for ED, but this measure includes an indigestible portion (e.g., bones, shell, salt) that can vary widely among organisms. Further, several distinct models exist for various taxonomic groups, yet none can accurately estimate invertebrate, vertebrate and plant ED with a single equation. Here, we present a novel method to estimate the ED of organisms using percent ash‐free dry weight (AFDW). Using data obtained from 11 studies diverse in geographic, temporal and taxonomic scope, AFDW, DW as well as percent protein and percent lipid were compared as predictors of ED. Linear models were produced on a logarithmic scale, including dummy variables for broad taxonomic groups. AFDW was the superior predictor of ED compared to DW, percent protein content and percent lipid content. Model selection revealed that using correction factors (dummy variables) for aquatic animals (AA) and terrestrial invertebrates (TI) produced the best‐supported model—log 10 (ED) = 1.07*log 10 (AFDW) − 0.80 ( R 2 = 0.978, p < .00001)—with an intercept adjustment of 0.09 and 0.04 for AA and TI, respectively. All models including AFDW as a predictor had high predictive power ( R 2 > 0.97), suggesting that AFDW can be used with high degrees of certainty to predict the ED of taxonomically diverse organisms. Our AFDW model will allow ED to be determined with minimal cost and time requirements and excludes ash‐weight from estimates of digestible mass. Its ease of use will allow for ED to be more readily and accurately determined for diverse taxa across different ecosystems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".