MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412860780 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113942

A comprehensive water quality assessment for a typical river–lake watershed in Northeast China: implications for the water management of boundary lake

2025· article· en· W4412860780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bingbo Ni, Xuemei Liu, Yanfeng Wu, Ming Jiang, Yuanchun Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWater qualityWatershedChinaEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementBoundary (topology)Watershed managementFisheryGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• An improved water quality index (WQI) model was established based on machine learning algorithm. • The WQI condition of 60%−70% monitoring stations in the Muling-Xingkai watershed was good. • River water quality was worse than that of reservoirs and lakes, especially in summer-autumn. • Main driving factors for water quality deterioration differ in summer-autumn and winter-spring. • Nitrogen input and endogenous phosphorus release should be curbed to protect Xingkai Lake. Seasonal freezing and a mismatch between river and lake water quality targets have limited the accurate evaluation of water quality in the northern river–lake system. The water quality of the boundary lake poses a threat to aquatic ecological security and may also affect regional geopolitical stability. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive water quality evaluation system to effectively manage the water health of boundary lakes. In this study, we aimed to develop a new comprehensive water quality index model to analyze the water quality status and identify the underlying driving mechanisms within the Muling-Xingkai watershed, thereby proposing effective water management strategies. The XGBoost model and the aggregation function of eight sub-indicators were employed to identify the primary control indicators across various seasons. These methods reduced data redundancy and enhanced the sensitivity of the comprehensive water quality index (WQI) model. The weighted harmonic mean model ( R 2 = 0.95, RMSE = 7.1 for summer-autumn; R 2 = 0.96, RMSE = 10.2 for winter-spring) and unweighted Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment model ( R 2 = 0.94, RMSE = 4.2 for summer-autumn; R 2 = 0.90, RMSE = 4.8 for winter-spring) were identified as the optimal functions for water quality assessment. Based on the WQI assessment of 480 water samples collected during 2022–2023, 60 % to 70 % of the monitoring stations achieved a good water quality status (WQI score > 80) in the Muling-Xingkai watershed. The water quality status within the watershed, as assessed by the WQI model, followed the order: river < reservoir < Xingkai Lake < Xiaoxingkai Lake. In addition, our systematic approach efficiently identified key water quality indicators from 11 types of indicators, including total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and water temperature (Tw) during the summer-autumn period, and TN and dissolved oxygen (DO) in the winter-spring period. Based on structural equation modeling (SEM), human activities (irrigated area, fertilizer application rate) and natural factors (air temperature, precipitation, and flow) were identified as the primary driving forces behind water quality deterioration in the Muling-Xingkai watershed during the summer-autumn and winter-spring seasons, respectively. To safeguard the ecological health of Xingkai Lake, it is imperative to reduce nitrogen inputs from the Muling River and mitigate phosphorus release from lake sediments in response to climate warming and the expansion of irrigation districts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207