ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2024
Predicting freshwater biological quality using macrophytes: A comparison of empirical modelling approaches.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.