Statistical modelling of aquatic size spectra: integrating data from multiple taxa and sampling methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Size spectra are used to assess the status and functioning of marine and freshwater ecosystems worldwide. Its use is underpinned by theory linking the dynamics of trophic interactions to a power-law decline of abundance with body size in ecological communities. Recent papers on empirical size spectrum estimation have argued for Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) of power-law probability distributions as a more accurate alternative to traditional linear regression approaches. One major limitation of currently used size spectrum estimators from MLE is that they cannot account for the use of multiple sampling protocols, nor the distortions caused by gear size selectivity, and therefore they become restricted to a relatively narrow taxonomic group and size range. Further progress in the field requires new methods that are flexible enough to combine multiple trophic groups and sampling gears into a single size spectrum estimate, while taking advantage of more accurate distributional approaches. The method we propose in this paper fills this gap by deriving the distribution of observed sizes explicitly from the underlying power-law spectrum and gear selectivity functions. It specifies likelihoods as a product of two components: (i) the probability of belonging to a given group and (ii) the probability distribution within the group. Using Bayesian estimation, we applied the method to surveys of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fishes in lakes of Quetico Provincial Park, northwestern Ontario, using Van Dorn samplers, zooplankton nets, gillnets, and hydroacoustics. The results show that the spectra estimated from subsets of trophic groups or gears are weak predictors of more complete spectra, highlighting the importance of using more inclusive community data. The two-component partitioning of likelihoods also helped demonstrating the existence of between-group spectrum slopes that were overall steeper than within-group slopes, indicating that heterogeneity of trophic transfers across the size spectrum is an important factor structuring these 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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".