Multi‐temporal assessment of grassland α‐ and β‐diversity using hyperspectral imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While more and more studies are exploring the application of remote sensing in assessing biodiversity for different ecosystems, most consider biodiversity at one point in time. Using several remote-sensing-based metrics, we asked how well remote sensing can detect biodiversity (both α- and β-diversity) in a prairie grassland across time using airborne hyperspectral data collected in two successive years (2017 and 2018) and at different periods in the growing season (2018). The ability to detect biodiversity using "spectral diversity" and "spectral species" types indeed varied significantly over a 2-yr timespan. Toward the end of the growing season in 2018, the relationship between field- and remote-sensing-based α- and β-diversity weakened compared to data collected from the same season in the previous year. This contrasting pattern between the two years was likely influenced by prescribed fire, altered weather, and the resulting shifting species composition and phenology. These findings indicate that direct detection of α- and β-diversity in grasslands should be multi-temporal when possible and should consider the effect of disturbances, climate variables, and phenology. We demonstrate an essential role for airborne platforms in developing a global biodiversity monitoring system involving forthcoming space-borne hyperspectral sensors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".