A Process‐Based Model Integrating Remote Sensing Data for Evaluating Ecosystem Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Terrestrial ecosystems provide multiple services interacting in complex ways. However, most ecosystem services (ESs) models (e.g., InVEST and ARIES) ignored the relationships among ESs. Process‐based models can overcome this limitation, and the integration of ecological models with remote sensing data could greatly facilitate the investigation of the complex ecological processes. Therefore, based on the Carbon and Exchange between Vegetation, Soil, and Atmosphere (CEVSA) models, we developed a process‐based ES model (CEVSA‐ES) integrating remotely sensed leaf area index to evaluate four important ESs (i.e., productivity provision, carbon sequestration, water retention, and soil retention) at annual timescale in China. Compared to the traditional terrestrial biosphere models, the main innovation of CEVSA‐ES model was the consideration of soil erosion processes and its impact on carbon cycling. The new version also improved the carbon‐water cycle algorithms. Then, the Sobol and DEMC methods that integrated the CEVSA‐ES model with nine flux sites comprising 39 site‐years were used to identify and optimize parameters. Finally, the model using the optimized parameters was validated at 26 field sites comprising 135 site‐years. Simulation results showed good fits with ecosystem processes, explaining 95%, 92%, 76%, and 65% interannual variabilities of gross primary productivity, ecosystem respiration, net ecosystem productivity, and evapotranspiration, respectively. The CEVSA‐ES model performed well for productivity provision and carbon sequestration, which explained 96% and 81% of the spatial‐temporal variations of the observed annual productivity provision and carbon sequestration, respectively. The model also captured the interannual trends of water retention and soil erosion for most sites or basins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".