The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diatoms and pH reconstruction
Open accessAbstract
Palaeolimnological diatom data comprise counts of many species expressed as percentages for each sample. Reconstruction of past lake-water pH from such data involves two steps; (i) regression, where responses of modern diatom abundances to pH are modelled and (ii) calibration where the modelled responses are used to infer pH from diatom assemblages preserved in lake sediments. In view of the highly multivariate nature of diatom data, the strongly nonlinear response of diatoms to pH, and the abundance of zero values in the data, a compromise between ecological realism and computational feasability is essential. The two numerical approaches used are (i) the computationally demanding but formal statistical approach of maximum likelihood (m l) Gaussian logit regression and calibration and (ii) the computationally straightforward but heuristic approach of weighted averaging (w a ) regression and calibration. When the Surface Water Acidification Project (SWAP) modern training set of 178 lakes is reduced by data-screening to 167 lakes, w a gives superior results in terms of lowest root mean squared errors of prediction in cross-validation. Bootstrapping is also used to derive prediction errors, not only for the training set as a whole but also for individual pH reconstructions by WA for stratigraphic samples from Round Loch of Glenhead, southwest Scotland covering the last 10000 years. These reconstructions are evaluated in terms of lack-of-fit to pH and analogue measures and are interpreted in terms of rate of change by using bootstrapping of the reconstructed pH time-series.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation
Efron, B., & Gong, G. (1983) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1983.10483087 · Cited by 3,229
Cited by
Birks, H. J. B. (2011) · The Open Ecology Journal · doi:10.2174/1874213001003020068 · Cited by 389
Self-citationUse of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity
Hill, B. H., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Stevenson, R. J., McCormick, F. H., & Johnson, C. B. (2000) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.2307/1468281 · Cited by 317
Birks, H. H., Battarbee, R. W., & Birks, H. J. B. (2000) · Journal of Paleolimnology · doi:10.1023/a:1008079725596 · Cited by 296
Self-citationStevenson, A. C., & Harrison, R. J. (1992) · Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society · doi:10.1017/s0079497x00004175 · Cited by 88
Self-citationEkdahl, E. J., Teranes, J. L., Wittkop, C. A., Stoermer, E. F., Reavie, E. D., & Smol, J. P. (2007) · Journal of Paleolimnology · doi:10.1007/s10933-006-9016-7 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Birks, H. J. B., Braak, C. J. F. T., Line, J. M., Juggins, S., & Stevenson, A. C.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1990-03-12
- Volume
- 327
- Issue
- 1240
- Pages
- 263-278
- ISSN
- 0080-4622 (ISSN-L)
- 2054-0280
- OpenAlex
- W1990021520
- Cited by
- 1,104
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diatoms and pH reconstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1990.0062
- The paper
- Birks, H. J. B., Braak, C. J. F. T., Line, J. M., Juggins, S., & Stevenson, A. C. (1990). Diatoms and pH reconstruction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0062
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.