Detecting changes in understorey and canopy vegetation cycles in West Central Alberta using a fusion of Landsat and MODIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To model regional vegetation cycles through data fusion methods for creating a 30‐m daily vegetation product from 2000 to 2018 and to analyze annual vegetation trends over this time period. Location The Yellowhead Bear Management Area, a 31,180‐km 2 area in west central Alberta, Canada. Methods In this paper, we use Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) as a data fusion technique to combine Landsat 5, 7 and 8 satellite data and Moderate Resolution Image Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua and Terra imagery, to quantify daily vegetation using Enhanced Vegetation Index at a 30‐m resolution, for the years 2000–2018. We validated this approach, entitled DRIVE (Daily Remote Inference of VEgetation), using imagery acquired from a network of ground cameras. Results When DRIVE was compared to start and end of season dates (SOS and EOS respectively) derived from ground cameras, correlations were r = 0.73 at SOS and r = 0.85 at EOS with a mean absolute error of 7.17 days at SOS and 10.76 days at EOS. Results showed that DRIVE accurately increased spatial and temporal resolution of remote‐sensing data. We demonstrated that SOS is advancing at a maximum rate of 0.78 days per year temporally over the 18‐year time period for varying elevation gradients and land cover classes over the region. Conclusions With DRIVE, we demonstrate the utility of DTW in quantifying vegetation cycles over a large heterogeneous region and determining how changing climate is affecting regional vegetation. DRIVE may prove to be an important method to determine how carbon sequestration is varying within fine‐scale individual plant communities in response to changing climate and likely will be beneficial to wildlife movement and habitat selection studies examining the varying response of wildlife species to changing vegetation cycles under shifting climatic conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".