Applying the core-satellite species concept: Characteristics of rare and common riverine dissolved organic matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Dissolved organic matter (DOM) composition varies over space and time, with a multitude of factors driving the presence or absence of each compound found in the complex DOM mixture. Compounds ubiquitously present across a wide range of river systems (hereafter termed core compounds) may differ in chemical composition and reactivity from compounds present in only a few settings (hereafter termed satellite compounds). Here, we investigated the spatial patterns in DOM molecular formulae presence (occupancy) in surface water and sediments across 97 river corridors at a continental scale using the “Worldwide Hydrobiogeochemical Observation Network for Dynamic River Systems—WHONDRS” research consortium. Methods We used a novel data-driven approach to identify core and satellite compounds and compared their molecular properties identified with Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS). Results We found that core compounds clustered around intermediate hydrogen/carbon and oxygen/carbon ratios across both sediment and surface water samples, whereas the satellite compounds varied widely in their elemental composition. Within surface water samples, core compounds were dominated by lignin-like formulae, whereas protein-like formulae dominated the core pool in sediment samples. In contrast, satellite molecular formulae were more evenly distributed between compound classes in both sediment and water molecules. Core compounds found in both sediment and water exhibited lower molecular mass, lower oxidation state, and a higher degree of aromaticity, and were inferred to be more persistent than global satellite compounds. Higher putative biochemical transformations were found in core than satellite compounds, suggesting that the core pool was more processed. Discussion The observed differences in chemical properties of core and satellite compounds point to potential differences in their sources and contribution to DOM processing in river corridors. Overall, our work points to the potential of data-driven approaches separating rare and common compounds to reduce some of the complexity inherent in studying riverine DOM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".