4.6 Review

Trends in Diatom Research Since 1991 Based on Topic Modeling

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7080213

关键词

bibliometrics; cold topic; diatom; hot topic; Latent Dirichlet Allocation

资金

  1. Yunnan Provincial Government Leading Scientist Program [2015HA024]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601208]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diatoms are fundamental carbon sources in a wide range of aquatic food webs and have the potential for wide application in addressing environmental change. Understanding the evolution of topics in diatom research will provide a clear and needed guide to strengthen research on diatoms. However, such an overview remains unavailable. In this study, we used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a generative model, to identify topics and determine their trends (i.e., cold and hot topics) by analyzing the abstracts of 19,000 publications from the Web of Science that were related to diatoms during 1991-2018. A total of 116 topics were identified from a Bayesian model selection. The hot topics (diversity, environmental indicator, climate change, land use, and water quality) that were identified by LDA indicated that diatoms are increasingly used as indicators to assess water quality and identify modern climate change impacts due to intensive anthropogenic activities. In terms of cold topics (growth rate, culture growth, cell life history, copepod feeding, grazing by microzooplankton, zooplankton predation, and primary productivity) and hot topics (spatial-temporal distribution, morphology, molecular identification, gene expression, and review), we determined that basic studies on diatoms have decreased and that studies tend to be more comprehensive. This study notes that future directions in diatom research will be closely associated with the application of diatoms in environmental management and climate change to cope with environmental challenges, and more comprehensive issues related to diatoms should be considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据