Machine learning to identify environmental drivers of phytoplankton blooms in the Southern Baltic Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phytoplankton blooms exhibit varying patterns in timing and number of peaks within ecosystems. These differences in blooming patterns are partly explained by phytoplankton:nutrient interactions and external factors such as temperature, salinity and light availability. Understanding these interactions and drivers is essential for effective bloom management and modelling as driving factors potentially differ or are shared across ecosystems on regional scales. Here, we used a 22-year data set (19 years training and 3 years validation data) containing chlorophyll, nutrients (dissolved and total), and external drivers (temperature, salinity, light) of the southern Baltic Sea coast, a European brackish shelf sea, which constituted six different phytoplankton blooming patterns. We employed generalized additive mixed models to characterize similar blooming patterns and trained an artificial neural network within the Universal Differential Equation framework to learn a differential equation representation of these pattern. Applying Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics uncovered algebraic relationships in phytoplankton:nutrient:external driver interactions. Nutrients availability was driving factor for blooms in enclosed coastal waters; nutrients and temperature in more open regions. We found evidence of hydrodynamical export of phytoplankton, natural mortality or external grazing not explicitly measured in the data. This data-driven workflow allows new insight into driver-differences in region specific blooming dynamics.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".