Spatial Agreement among Vegetation Disturbance Maps in Tropical Domains Using Landsat Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting disturbances in native vegetation is a crucial component of many environmental management strategies, and remote sensing-based methods are the most efficient way to collect multi-temporal disturbance data over large areas. Given that there is a large range of datasets for monitoring, analyzing, and detecting disturbances, many methods have been well-studied and successfully implemented. However, factors such as the vegetation type, input data, and change detection method can significantly alter the outcomes of a disturbance-detection study. We evaluated the spatial agreement of disturbance maps provided by the Breaks For Additive Season and Trend (BFAST) algorithm, evaluating seven spectral indices in three distinct vegetation domains in Brazil: Atlantic forest, savanna, and semi-arid woodland, by assessing levels of agreement between the outputs. We computed individual map accuracies based on a reference dataset, then ranked their performance, while also observing their relationships with specific vegetation domains. Our results indicated a low rate of spatial agreement among index-based disturbance maps, which itself was minimally influenced by vegetation domain. Wetness indices produced greater detection accuracies in comparison to greenness-related indices free of saturation. The normalized difference moisture index performed best in the Atlantic forest domains, yet performed poorest in semi-arid woodland, reflecting its specific sensitivity to vegetation and its water content. The normalized difference vegetation index led to high disturbance detection accuracies in the savanna and semi-arid woodland domains. This study offered novel insight into vegetation disturbance maps, their relationship to different ecosystem types, and corresponding accuracies. Distinct input data can produce non-spatially correlated disturbance maps and reflect site-specific sensitivity. Future research should explore algorithm limitations presented in this study, as well as the expansion to other techniques and vegetation domains across the globe.
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) | 0.000 | 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".