Aboveground biomass patterns across treeless northern landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboveground vegetation biomass in northern treeless landscapes - peatlands and Arctic tundra - has been modelled with spectral information derived from optical remote sensing in several studies. However, synthesized overviews of biomass patterns across circumpolar sites have been limited. Based on data from eight study sites in Europe, Siberia and Canada, we ask (1) how biomass is divided between plant functional types (PFTs) and (2) how well biomass patterns can be detected with widely available, moderate spatial resolution (3-10 m) satellite imagery and topographic data. We explain biomass patterns using random forest regressions with the predictors being spectral bands and indices calculated from multi-temporal Sentinel-2 and PlanetScope imagery and topographic information calculated from ArcticDEM data. Our results indicate that there are notable differences in vegetation composition between northern landscapes with mosses, graminoids and deciduous shrubs being the most dominant PFTs. Remote sensing data detects biomass patterns, but regression performance varies between sites (explained variance 36-70%, normalized root mean square error 9-19%). There is also variability between sites whether Sentinel-2 or PlanetScope data is more suitable to detect biomass patterns and which the most important predictors are. Topographic information has a minor or negligible importance in most of the sites. Our results suggest that there is no easily generalizable relationship between satellite-derived vegetation greenness and biomass.
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) | 0.001 | 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".