首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Management >Comparing Hydrogeomorphic Approaches to Lake Classification
【24h】

Comparing Hydrogeomorphic Approaches to Lake Classification

机译:水文地貌方法与湖泊分类的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A classification system is often used to reduce the number of different ecosystem types that governmental agencies are charged with monitoring and managing. We compare the ability of several different hydrogeomorphic (HGM)-based classifications to group lakes for water chemistry/clarity. We ask: (1) Which approach to lake classification is most successful at classifying lakes for similar water chemistry/clarity? (2) Which HGM features are most strongly related to the lake classes? and, (3) Can a single classification successfully classify lakes for all of the water chemistry/clarity variables examined? We use uni-variate and multivariate classification and regression tree (CART and MvCART) analysis of HGM features to classify alkalinity, water color, Secchi, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a from 151 minimally disturbed lakes in Michigan USA. We developed two MvCART models overall and two CART models for each water chemistry/clarity variable, in each case comparing: local HGM characteristics alone and local HGM characteristics combined with regionalizations and landscape position. The combined CART models had the highest strength of evidence (ω range 0.92-1.00) and maximized within class homogeneity (ICC range 36-66%) for all water chemistry/clarity variables except water color and chlorophyll a. Because the most successful single classification was on average 20% less successful in classifying other water chemistry/clarity variables, we found that no single classification captures variability for all lake responses tested. Therefore, we suggest that the most successful classification (1) is specific to individual response variables, and (2) incorporates information from multiple spatial scales (regionalization and local HGM variables).
机译:分类系统通常用于减少政府机构负责监视和管理的不同生态系统类型的数量。我们比较了几种不同的基于水地貌(HGM)的分类能力,以对湖泊进行水化学/净度分组。我们问:(1)哪种湖泊分类方法最能成功地对具有相似水化学/净度的湖泊进行分类? (2)哪些HGM特征与湖泊类别最相关? (3)是否可以通过一个单一分类就所检查的所有水化学/净度变量成功地对湖泊进行分类?我们使用HGM特征的单变量和多元分类和回归树(CART和MvCART)分析来分类来自美国密歇根州151个最小扰动湖泊的碱度,水色,Secchi,总氮,总磷和叶绿素a。对于每种水化学/净度变量,我们分别开发了两个MvCART模型和两个CART模型,在每种情况下都进行了比较:单独的局部HGM特征和局部HGM特征以及区域化和景观位置。组合的CART模型具有最高的证据强度(ω范围为0.92-1.00),并且对于所有水化学/澄清度变量(除水颜色和叶绿素a以外),在类别同质性(ICC范围为36-66%)内最大化。由于最成功的单一分类在将其他水化学/净度变量进行分类时平均要比平均少成功20%,因此我们发现,没有一个单一分类能够捕获所有测试的湖泊响应的变化性。因此,我们建议最成功的分类(1)特定于单个响应变量,并且(2)包含来自多个空间尺度(区域化和局部HGM变量)的信息。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental Management》 |2011年第5期|p.957-974|共18页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, 206 Natural Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA;

    Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA;

    Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA;

    Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, 35 East Holmes Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825, USA;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    ecoregion; regionalization; biogeochemistry; water chemistry; water clarity; reference conditions; eutrophication;

    机译:生态区区域化;生物地球化学水化学水透明度参考条件;富营养化;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 13:29:08

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号