Towards Monitoring Biodiversity in Amazonian Forests: How Regular Samples Capture Meso-Scale Altitudinal Variation in 25 km2 Plots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological monitoring and sampling optima are context and location specific. Novel applications (e.g. biodiversity monitoring for environmental service payments) call for renewed efforts to establish reliable and robust monitoring in biodiversity rich areas. As there is little information on the distribution of biodiversity across the Amazon basin, we used altitude as a proxy for biological variables to test whether meso-scale variation can be adequately represented by different sample sizes in a standardized, regular-coverage sampling arrangement. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used Shuttle-Radar-Topography-Mission digital elevation values to evaluate if the regular sampling arrangement in standard RAPELD (rapid assessments ("RAP") over the long-term (LTER ["PELD" in Portuguese])) grids captured patters in meso-scale spatial variation. The adequacy of different sample sizes (n = 4 to 120) were examined within 32,325 km2/3,232,500 ha (1293×25 km2 sample areas) distributed across the legal Brazilian Amazon. Kolmogorov-Smirnov-tests, correlation and root-mean-square-error were used to measure sample representativeness, similarity and accuracy respectively. Trends and thresholds of these responses in relation to sample size and standard-deviation were modeled using Generalized-Additive-Models and conditional-inference-trees respectively. We found that a regular arrangement of 30 samples captured the distribution of altitude values within these areas. Sample size was more important than sample standard deviation for representativeness and similarity. In contrast, accuracy was more strongly influenced by sample standard deviation. Additionally, analysis of spatially interpolated data showed that spatial patterns in altitude were also recovered within areas using a regular arrangement of 30 samples. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings show that the logistically feasible sample used in the RAPELD system successfully recovers meso-scale altitudinal patterns. This suggests that the sample size and regular arrangement may also be generally appropriate for quantifying spatial patterns in biodiversity at similar scales across at least 90% (≈5 million km2) of the Brazilian Amazon.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".