MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159555583 · doi:10.3390/s21093098

Identification of the Optimal Season and Spectral Regions for Shrub Cover Estimation in Grasslands

2021· article· en· W3159555583 on OpenAlexafffund
Irini Soubry, Xulin Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsShrubGrasslandVegetation (pathology)Remote sensingEnvironmental scienceTransectGrassland ecosystemGrowing seasonEcosystemAgroforestryEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Woody plant encroachment (WPE), the expansion of native and non-native trees and shrubs into grasslands, is a less studied factor that leads to declines in grassland ecosystem health. With the increasing application of remote sensing in grassland monitoring and measuring, it is still difficult to detect WPE at its early stages when its spectral signals are not strong enough. Even at late stages, woody species have strong vegetation characteristics that are commonly categorized as healthy ecosystems. We focus on how shrub encroachment can be detected through remote sensing by looking at the biophysical and spectral properties of the WPE grassland ecosystem, investigating the appropriate season and wavelengths that identify shrub cover, testing the spectral separability of different shrub cover groups and by revealing the lowest shrub cover that can be detected by remote sensing. Biophysical results indicate spring as the best season to distinguish shrubs in our study area. The earliest shrub encroachment can be identified most likely only when the cover reaches between 10% and 25%. A correlation between wavelength spectra and shrub cover indicated four regions that are statistically significant, which differ by season. Furthermore, spectral separability of shrubs increases with their cover; however, good separation is only possible for pure shrub pixels. From the five separability metrics used, Transformed divergence and Jeffries-Matusita distance have better interpretations. The spectral regions for pure shrub pixel separation are slightly different from those derived by correlation and can be explained by the influences from land cover mixtures along our study transect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207