A Systematic Review on the Integration of Remote Sensing and GIS to Forest and Grassland Ecosystem Health Attributes, Indicators, and Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to protect forest and grassland ecosystems because they are ecologically rich and provide numerous ecosystem services. Upscaling monitoring from local to global scale is imperative in reaching this goal. The SDG Agenda does not include indicators that directly quantify ecosystem health. Remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can bridge the gap for large-scale ecosystem health assessment. We systematically reviewed field-based and remote-based measures of ecosystem health for forests and grasslands, identified the most important ones and provided an overview on remote sensing and GIS-based measures. We included 163 English language studies within terrestrial non-tropical biomes and used a pre-defined classification system to extract ecological stressors and attributes, collected corresponding indicators, measures, and proxy values. We found that the main ecological attributes of each ecosystem contribute differently in the literature, and that almost half of the examined studies used remote sensing to estimate indicators. The major stressor for forests was “climate change”, followed by “insect infestation”; for grasslands it was “grazing”, followed by “climate change”. “Biotic interactions, composition, and structure” was the most important ecological attribute for both ecosystems. “Fire disturbance” was the second most important for forests, while for grasslands it was “soil chemistry and structure”. Less than a fifth of studies used vegetation indices; NDVI was the most common. There are monitoring inconsistencies from the broad range of indicators and measures. Therefore, we recommend a standardized field, GIS, and remote sensing-based approach to monitor ecosystem health and integrity and facilitate land managers and policy-makers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".