利用大型藻类预测淡水生物质量:经验建模方法比较。

IF 5.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science and Pollution Research Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s11356-024-35497-8
Daniel Gebler, Pedro Segurado, Maria Teresa Ferreira, Francisca C Aguiar
{"title":"利用大型藻类预测淡水生物质量:经验建模方法比较。","authors":"Daniel Gebler, Pedro Segurado, Maria Teresa Ferreira, Francisca C Aguiar","doi":"10.1007/s11356-024-35497-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Difficulties have hampered bioassessment in southern European rivers due to limited reference data and the unclear impact of multiple interacting stressors on plant communities. Predictive modelling may help overcome this limitation by aggregating different pressures affecting aquatic organisms and showing the most influential factors. We assembled a dataset of 292 Mediterranean sampling locations on perennial rivers and streams (mainland Portugal) with macrophyte and environmental data. We compared models based on multiple linear regression (MLR), boosted regression trees (BRT) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Secondarily, we investigated the relationship between two macrophyte indices grounded in distinct conceptual premises (the Riparian Vegetation Index - RVI, and the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers - IBMR) and a set of environmental variables, including climatic conditions, geographical characteristics, land use, water chemistry and habitat quality of rivers. The quality of models for the IBMR was superior to those for the RVI in all cases, which indicates a better ecological linkage of IBMR with the stressor and abiotic variables. The IBMR using ANN outperformed the BRT models, for which the r-Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.877 and 0.801, and the normalised root mean square errors were 10.0 and 11.3, respectively. Variable importance analysis revealed that longitude and geology, hydrological/climatic conditions, water body size and land use had the highest impact on the IBMR model predictions. Despite the differences in the quality of the models, all showed similar importance to individual input variables, although in a different order. Despite some difficulties in model training for ANNs, our findings suggest that BRT and ANNs can be used to assess ecological quality, and for decision-making on the environmental management of rivers.</p>","PeriodicalId":545,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting freshwater biological quality using macrophytes: A comparison of empirical modelling approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Gebler, Pedro Segurado, Maria Teresa Ferreira, Francisca C Aguiar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11356-024-35497-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Difficulties have hampered bioassessment in southern European rivers due to limited reference data and the unclear impact of multiple interacting stressors on plant communities. Predictive modelling may help overcome this limitation by aggregating different pressures affecting aquatic organisms and showing the most influential factors. We assembled a dataset of 292 Mediterranean sampling locations on perennial rivers and streams (mainland Portugal) with macrophyte and environmental data. We compared models based on multiple linear regression (MLR), boosted regression trees (BRT) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Secondarily, we investigated the relationship between two macrophyte indices grounded in distinct conceptual premises (the Riparian Vegetation Index - RVI, and the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers - IBMR) and a set of environmental variables, including climatic conditions, geographical characteristics, land use, water chemistry and habitat quality of rivers. The quality of models for the IBMR was superior to those for the RVI in all cases, which indicates a better ecological linkage of IBMR with the stressor and abiotic variables. The IBMR using ANN outperformed the BRT models, for which the r-Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.877 and 0.801, and the normalised root mean square errors were 10.0 and 11.3, respectively. Variable importance analysis revealed that longitude and geology, hydrological/climatic conditions, water body size and land use had the highest impact on the IBMR model predictions. Despite the differences in the quality of the models, all showed similar importance to individual input variables, although in a different order. Despite some difficulties in model training for ANNs, our findings suggest that BRT and ANNs can be used to assess ecological quality, and for decision-making on the environmental management of rivers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science and Pollution Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science and Pollution Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35497-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35497-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于参考数据有限,多种相互影响的压力因素对植物群落的影响也不明确,因此南欧河流的生物评估工作困难重重。预测建模可通过汇总影响水生生物的不同压力并显示影响最大的因素,从而帮助克服这一局限性。我们收集了地中海地区 292 个常年河流和溪流取样点的数据集(葡萄牙大陆),其中包含大型植物和环境数据。我们比较了基于多元线性回归(MLR)、增强回归树(BRT)和人工神经网络(ANN)的模型。其次,我们研究了基于不同概念前提的两种大型植物指数(河岸植被指数(RVI)和河流大型植物生物指数(IBMR))与一系列环境变量(包括气候条件、地理特征、土地利用、水化学和河流栖息地质量)之间的关系。在所有情况下,IBMR 模型的质量都优于 RVI 模型,这表明 IBMR 与压力源和非生物变量的生态联系更好。使用 ANN 的 IBMR 模型优于 BRT 模型,其 r-Pearson 相关系数分别为 0.877 和 0.801,归一化均方根误差分别为 10.0 和 11.3。变量重要性分析表明,经度和地质、水文/气候条件、水体大小和土地利用对 IBMR 模型预测的影响最大。尽管模型的质量不同,但所有模型都显示出对单个输入变量类似的重要性,只是顺序不同。尽管在模拟方差网络的模型训练方面存在一些困难,但我们的研究结果表明,BRT 和模拟方差网络可用于评估生态质量和河流环境管理决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predicting freshwater biological quality using macrophytes: A comparison of empirical modelling approaches.

Difficulties have hampered bioassessment in southern European rivers due to limited reference data and the unclear impact of multiple interacting stressors on plant communities. Predictive modelling may help overcome this limitation by aggregating different pressures affecting aquatic organisms and showing the most influential factors. We assembled a dataset of 292 Mediterranean sampling locations on perennial rivers and streams (mainland Portugal) with macrophyte and environmental data. We compared models based on multiple linear regression (MLR), boosted regression trees (BRT) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Secondarily, we investigated the relationship between two macrophyte indices grounded in distinct conceptual premises (the Riparian Vegetation Index - RVI, and the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers - IBMR) and a set of environmental variables, including climatic conditions, geographical characteristics, land use, water chemistry and habitat quality of rivers. The quality of models for the IBMR was superior to those for the RVI in all cases, which indicates a better ecological linkage of IBMR with the stressor and abiotic variables. The IBMR using ANN outperformed the BRT models, for which the r-Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.877 and 0.801, and the normalised root mean square errors were 10.0 and 11.3, respectively. Variable importance analysis revealed that longitude and geology, hydrological/climatic conditions, water body size and land use had the highest impact on the IBMR model predictions. Despite the differences in the quality of the models, all showed similar importance to individual input variables, although in a different order. Despite some difficulties in model training for ANNs, our findings suggest that BRT and ANNs can be used to assess ecological quality, and for decision-making on the environmental management of rivers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
17.20%
发文量
6549
审稿时长
3.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) serves the international community in all areas of Environmental Science and related subjects with emphasis on chemical compounds. This includes: - Terrestrial Biology and Ecology - Aquatic Biology and Ecology - Atmospheric Chemistry - Environmental Microbiology/Biobased Energy Sources - Phytoremediation and Ecosystem Restoration - Environmental Analyses and Monitoring - Assessment of Risks and Interactions of Pollutants in the Environment - Conservation Biology and Sustainable Agriculture - Impact of Chemicals/Pollutants on Human and Animal Health It reports from a broad interdisciplinary outlook.
期刊最新文献
Predicting freshwater biological quality using macrophytes: A comparison of empirical modelling approaches. Prevalence, virulence potential, antibiotic resistance profile, heavy metal resistance genes of Listeria innocua: A first study in consumed foods for assessment of human health risk in Northern Turkey. Surface modification of heterostructured Bi8W4O24/ZrO2@GO composite via low-pressure cold plasma for boosting photocatalytic potential against Basic fuchsin and Bismarck brown Y dyes. Biotic aspects of suspended solid reduction in sedimentation ponds. Effect of Moringa oleifera seeds on the removal of pathogens and pharmaceutical residues in a domestic wastewater treatment plant by an interdisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1