Modeling and Mapping Forest Floor Distributions of Common Bryophytes Using a LiDAR-Derived Depth-to-Water Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes how the cartographic depth-to-water (DTW) index in combination with other variables can be used to quantify, model and map the distribution of common forest floor bryophytes, at 1 m resolution. This was done by way of a case study, using 12 terrain and climate representative locations across New Brunswick, Canada. The presence/absence by moss species was determined at each location along upland-to-wetland transects within >10-m spaced 1-m2 forest floor plots. It was found that Bazzania trilobata, Dicranum polysetum, Polytrichum commune, Hylocomium splendens, and Pleurozium schreberi had greater probabilities of occurrence in well-drained forested areas, whereas Sphagnum fuscum and Sphagnum girgensohnii dominated in low-lying wet areas. The presence/absence of each species was quantified by way of logistic regression analyses, using DTW, slope, canopy closure, forest litter depth, ecosite type (8 classes), nutrient regime (4 classes, poor to rich); vegetation type (deciduous, coniferous, mixed, and shrubs), and macro- and micro-topography (upland, wetland; mounds, pits) as predictor variables. Among these, log10DTW and forest litter depth were the most consistent predictor variables, followed by mound versus pit. For the mapping purpose, only log10DTW and already mapped classifications for upland versus wetland and vegetation type were used to predict the probability of occurrences for the most frequent moss species, namely, D. polysetum, P. schreberi and Sphagnum spp. The overall accuracy for doing this ranged from 67% to 83%, with false positives and negatives amounting to 18% to 42%. The overall classification accuracy exceeded the probability by chance alone at 76.8%, with the significance level reached at 75.3%. The average level of probability by chance alone was 60.3%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".