Interpretation of interannual variability in long-term aquatic ecological surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term ecological surveys (LTES) often exhibit strong variability among sampling dates. The use and interpretation of such interannual variability is challenging due to the combination of multiple processes involved and sampling uncertainty. Here, we analysed the interannual variability in ∼30 years of 150 species density (fish and invertebrate) and environmental observation time series in four aquatic systems (stream, river, estuary, and marine continental shelf) with different sampling efforts to identify the information provided by this variability. We tested, using two empirical methods, whether we could observe simultaneous fluctuation between detrended time series corresponding to widely acknowledged assumptions about aquatic population dynamics: spatial effects, cohort effects, and environmental effects. We found a low number of significant results (36%, 9%, and 0% for spatial, cohort, and environmental effects, respectively), suggesting that sampling uncertainty overrode the effects of biological processes. Our study does not question the relevance of LTES for detecting important trends, but clearly indicates that the statistical power to interpret interannual variations in aquatic species densities is low, especially in large systems where the degree of sampling effort is always limited.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".