Satellite-based time series land cover and change information to map forest area consistent with national and international reporting requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forests are dynamic ecosystems, subject to both natural and anthropogenic agents of change. Wildfire, harvesting and other human activities alter the tree-covered area present in forests. From national and international reporting perspectives, forests include areas currently treed, as well as those disturbed forest areas that are not currently treed but will be, given time for regeneration and the advancement of natural successional processes. As a consequence, forest area can be depicted at a particular point in time, informed by a retrospective temporal context. Using time series of Landsat imagery, annual land cover maps can be generated that are informed by knowledge of past disturbance history (such as wildfire and harvesting). In this research, we use over three decades of annual land cover data generated from Landsat time series to generate a spatially explicit estimate of the forest area of Canada in 2010. We demonstrate how land cover and disturbance information can be combined to map the area of ‘forest’, as defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), within Canada’s 650 Mha of forested ecozones. Following this approach, we estimated Canada’s total forest area in 2010 to be 354.5 Mha. This estimate includes 324.5 Mha of current forest cover in 2010, plus an additional 33.2 Mha (or 9.4 per cent) of temporally informed forest area where tree cover had been temporarily lost due to fire or harvest, less 3.3 Mha that were removed to meet a definitional minimum size (0.5 ha) for contiguous forest area. Using Canada’s National Forest Inventory (NFI) as an independent reference source, the spatial agreement between the two estimates of forest area was ~84 per cent overall. Aspatially, the total area of the Landsat-derived estimate of 2010 forest area and the NFI baseline estimates differed by only 3 per cent, with notable regional differences in the wetland-dominated Hudson Plains Ecozone. Satellite-derived time series land cover and change information enable spatially explicit depictions of forest area (distinct from representations of forest cover) in a robust and transparent fashion, producing information of value to science, management and reporting information needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".