MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015884184 · doi:10.3390/rs12081235

Drivers of Forest Loss in a Megadiverse Hotspot on the Pacific Coast of Colombia

2020· article· en· W3015884184 on OpenAlexaff
Jesús A. Anaya, Víctor Hugo Gutiérrez-Vélez, Ana María Pacheco-Pascagaza, Sebastián Palomino‐Ángel, Natasha Han, Heiko Balzter

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversidad de MedellínNuclear Safety and Security CommissionSight Research UKDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)National Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsShrublandGeographyCloud forestLand coverBiodiversity hotspotDeforestation (computer science)AgroforestryBiodiversityClimate changeLand useEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropical forests are disappearing at unprecedented rates, but the drivers behind this transformation are not always clear. This limits the decision-making processes and the effectiveness of forest management policies. In this paper, we address the extent and drivers of deforestation of the Choco biodiversity hotspot, which has not received much scientific attention despite its high levels of plant diversity and endemism. The climate is characterized by persistent cloud cover which is a challenge for land cover mapping from optical satellite imagery. By using Google Earth Engine to select pixels with minimal cloud content and applying a random forest classifier to Landsat and Sentinel data, we produced a wall-to-wall land cover map, enabling a diagnosis of the status and drivers of forest loss in the region. Analyses of these new maps together with information from illicit crops and alluvial mining uncovered the pressure over intact forests. According to Global Forest Change (GFC) data, 2324 km2 were deforested in this area from 2001 to 2018, reaching a maximum in 2016 and 2017. We found that 68% of the area is covered by broadleaf forests (67,473 km2) and 15% by shrublands (14,483 km2), the latter with enormous potential to promote restoration projects. This paper provides a new insight into the conservation of this exceptional forest with a discussion of the drivers of forest loss, where illicit crops and alluvial mining were found to be responsible for 60% of forest loss.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207