Remote Sensing’s Recent and Future Contributions to Landscape Ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose of Review The purpose of this article is to review landscape ecology research from the past 5 years to identify past and future contributions from remote sensing to landscape ecology. Recent Findings Recent studies in landscape ecology have employed advances made in remote sensing. These include the use of reliable and open datasets derived from remote sensing, the availability of new sources for freely available satellite imagery, and machine-learning image classification techniques for classifying land cover types. Remote sensing data sources and methods have been used in landscape ecology to examine landscape structure. Additionally, these data sources and methods have been used to analyze landscape function including the effects of landscape structure and landscape change on biodiversity and population dynamics. Lastly, remote sensing data sources and methods have been used to analyze historical landscape changes and to simulate future landscape changes. Summary The ongoing integration of remote sensing analyses in landscape ecology will depend on continued accessibility of free imagery from satellite sources and open-access data-analysis software, analyses spanning multiple spatial and temporal scales, and novel land cover classification techniques that produce accurate and reliable land cover data. Continuing advances in remote sensing can help to address new landscape ecology research questions, enabling analyses that incorporate information that ranges from ground-based field samples of organisms to satellite-collected remote sensing data.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".