Ephraim Hanks | Geology Reports

USGS2023

A continuous classification of the 476,697 lakes of the conterminous US based on geographic archetypes

A variety of classification approaches are used to facilitate understanding, prediction, monitoring, and the management of lakes. However, broad-scale applicability of current approaches is limited by either the need for in situ lake data, incompatibilities among approaches, or a lack of empirical testing of approaches based on ex situ data. We developed a new geographic classification approach for 476,697 lakes ≥ 1 ha in the conterminous U.S. based on lake archetypes representing end members along gradients of multiple geographic features. We identified seven lake archetypes with distinct combinations of climate, hydrologic, geologic, topographic, and morphometric properties. Individual lakes were assigned weights for each of the seven archetypes such that groups of lakes with similar combinations of archetype weights tended to cluster spatially (although not strictly contiguous) and to have similar limnological properties (e.g., concentrations of nutrients, chlorophyll a (Chl a ), and dissolved organic carbon). Further, archetype lake classification improved commonly measured limnological relationships (e.g., between nutrients and Chl a ) compared to a global model; a discrete archetype classification slightly outperformed an ecoregion classification; and considering lakes as continuous mixtures of archetypes in a more complex model further improved fit. Overall, archetype classification of US lakes as continuous mixtures of geographic features improved understanding and prediction of lake responses to limnological drivers and should help researchers and managers better characterize and forecast lake states and responses to environmental change.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2022

A practical guide to understanding and validating complex models using data simulations

Biologists routinely fit novel and complex statistical models to push the limits of our understanding. Examples include, but are not limited to, flexible Bayesian approaches (e.g. BUGS, stan), frequentist and likelihood-based approaches (e.g. packages lme4 ) and machine learning methods. These software and programs afford the user greater control and flexibility in tailoring complex hierarchical models. However, this level of control and flexibility places a higher degree of responsibility on the user to evaluate the robustness of their statistical inference. To determine how often biologists are running model diagnostics on hierarchical models, we reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution , and we found that the majority of published papers did not report any validation of their hierarchical models, making it difficult for the reader to assess the robustness of their inference. This lack of reporting likely stems from a lack of standardized guidance for best practices and standard methods. Here, we provide a guide to understanding and validating complex models using data simulations. To determine how often biologists use data simulation techniques, we also reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journal Methods Ecology & Evolution . We found that 78% of the papers that proposed a new estimation technique, package or model used simulations or generated data in some capacity (18 of 23 papers); but very few of those papers (5 of 23 papers) included either a demonstration that the code could recover realistic estimates for a dataset with known parameters or a demonstration of the statistical properties of the approach. To distil the variety of simulations techniques and their uses, we provide a taxonomy of simulation studies based on the intended inference. We also encourage authors to include a basic validation study whenever novel statistical models are used, which in general, is easy to implement. Simulating data helps a researcher gain a deeper understanding of the models and their assumptions and establish the reliability of their estimation approaches. Wider adoption of data simulations by biologists can improve statistical inference, reliability and open science practices.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗