MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002183764 · doi:10.2981/11-055

Can Landsat data detect variations in snow cover within habitats of arctic ungulates?

2012· article· en· W2002183764 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Maher, Paul Treitz, Michael A. D. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of NunavutQueen's University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNunavut Wildlife Management BoardHøgskolen i HedmarkNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsUngulateSnowArcticPhysical geographySnow coverHabitatEnvironmental scienceLand coverForageEcologyGeographyMeteorologyLand useBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With climate change, modelling has suggested that increased inaccessibility of forage through snow may endanger some populations of arctic ungulates; however, contemporaneous data on snow‐cover conditions, other ecological factors and ungulate responses are lacking at the landscape scale. Researchers have increasingly used remote sensing to map snow cover with higher accuracy, but such tools have not been utilized in research and management of arctic ungulate populations. We estimated field‐measured percent snow‐covered area (F‐SCA) in wintering areas of endangered Peary caribou Rangifer tarandus pearyi in the Bathurst Island complex (BIC) and developed a threshold for a normalized difference snow index (NDSI) using Landsat data. We used our NDSI threshold and another threshold to estimate snow‐covered area (SCA) in Peary caribou habitats in the BIC during 1993‐2003, compared these estimates with snow data from the nearest weather station and assessed the adequacy of Landsat data for arctic ungulate research. Our calculated NDSI threshold of 0.70 reflected field observations better than the published threshold, and our estimated SCAs showed greater variation between study areas, between years and during snow melt. Estimated SCAs were not correlated with total snowfall or snow depth at the nearest weather station. We conclude that SCA using remotely‐sensed data for ungulate habitats would be more useful than weather‐station data. Our methods could detect winters with relatively mild snow‐cover conditions, but not those with very severe conditions; therefore, we recommend development of NDSI thresholds corresponding to ≥ 75% F‐SCA, instead of ≥ 50%. NDSI‐derived SCA methods should prove more useful for southerly arctic regions where sun angles would be less limiting than in the BIC. Higher resolution imagery may be more suited than Landsat for the assessment of snow cover in arctic ungulate ecology. With climate change, further development of remotely‐sensed indices of snow cover, such as NDSI and SCA, should enhance our understanding of how arctic ungulates may or may not adapt.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife BiologySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207