4.3 Article

Diatom-based conductivity and water-level inference models from eastern Tibetan (Qinghai-Xizang) Plateau lakes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 1-19

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024703012475

关键词

conductivity; diatoms; multivariate analysis; taxon response models; Tibetan (Qinghai-Xizang) Plateau; transfer functions; WA-PLS; water depth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate in central Asia is dominated by the Asian monsoon. The varying impact of the summer monsoon across the Tibetan (Qinghai-Xizang) Plateau provides a strong gradient in precipitation, resulting in lakes of different salinity. Diatoms have been shown to indicate changes in salinity. Thus, transfer functions for diatoms and salinity or related environmental variables represent an excellent tool for paleoclimatic reconstructions in the Tibetan Plateau. Forty freshwater to hypersaline lakes (salinity: 0.1 to 91.7 g(-1)) were investigated in the eastern Tibetan Plateau. The relationship between 120 diatom taxa and conductivity, maximum water depth and major ions were analyzed using an indicator value approach, ordination and taxon response models. Canonical correspondence analysis indicated that conductivity was the most important variable, accounting for 10.8% of the variance in the diatom assemblages. In addition water depth and weathering were influential. Weighted Averaging (WA) and Weighted Averaging Partial Least Square (WA-PLS) regression and calibration models were used to establish diatom-conductivity and water depth transfer functions. An optimal two-component WA-PLS model provided a high jack-knifed coefficient of prediction for conductivity (r(jack)(2) = 0.92), with a moderate root mean squared error of prediction (RMSEPjack = 0.22), a very low mean bias (0.0003), and a moderate maximum bias (0.26). AWA model with tolerance downweighting resulted in a slightly lower r(jack)(2) (0.89) for water depth, with RMSEPjack = 0.26, mean bias = -0.0103 and maximum bias = 0.26.

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

4.3
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