Green Vegetation Cover Dynamics in a Heterogeneous Grassland: Spectral Unmixing of Landsat Time Series from 1999 to 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to quantify green vegetation across space and over time is useful for studying grassland health and function and improving our understanding of the impact of land use and climate change on grasslands. Directly measuring the fraction of green vegetation cover is labor-intensive and thus only practical on relatively smaller experimental sites. Remote sensing vegetation indices, as a commonly-used method for large-area vegetation mapping, were found to produce inconsistent accuracies when mapping green vegetation in semi-arid grasslands, largely due to mixed pixels including both photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic material. The spectral mixture approach has the potential to map the fraction of green vegetation cover in a heterogeneous landscape, thanks to its ability to decompose a spectral signal from a mixed pixel into a set of fractional abundances. In this study, a time series of fractional green vegetation cover (FGVC) from 1999 to 2014 is estimated using the spectral mixture approach for a semi-arid mixed grassland, which represents a typical threatened, species-rich habitat in Central Canada. The shape of pixel clouds in each of the Landsat images is used to identify three major image endmembers (green vegetation, bare soil/litter, and water/shadow) for automated image spectral unmixing. The FGVC derived through the spectral mixture approach correlates highly with field observations (R2 = 0.86). Change in the FGVC over the study period was also mapped, and green vegetation in badlands and uplands is found to experience a slight increase, while vegetation in riparian zone shows a decrease. Only a small portion of the study area is undergoing significant changes, which is likely attributable to climate variability, bison reintroduction, and wildfire. The results of this study suggest that the automated spectral unmixing approach is promising, and the time series of medium-resolution images is capable of identifying changes in green vegetation cover in semi-arid grasslands. Further research should investigate driving forces for areas undergoing significant changes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".