Integrated models of nutrient dynamics in lake and reservoir watersheds: A systematic review and integrated modelling decision pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eutrophication of inland water bodies is a serious environmental threat. This review explores current integrated models for lake and reservoir ecosystems that focus on nutrient dynamics at a catchment scale. Many studies applied either watershed or lake/reservoir models, however, 49 studies were finally selected that combined both. We derived a list of 21 watershed models, 23 lake/reservoir models, and 6 hybrid models in different sets of combinations, with a range of objectives (e.g. understanding the natural processes, predicting, and analysing climate change and land-use scenarios, or evaluating the different management options). Some integrated models had multiple applications whereas others were only applied once, with an uneven global geographical distribution. To aid model selection by future users, we present a support tool discriminating the models by their features and application fields. This study encourages the development of open-source tools aiding interdisciplinary collaborations and further research in the field of integrated modelling. • Review of the applications of 21 watershed, 23 lake, and 6 hybrid models. • The use of integrated models has risen, but geographic disparities persist. • Nutrient management integration models show high variability in integration. • Our integrated modelling pathway aids future modellers' selection process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".