Classification of<i>Typha</i>-dominated wetlands using airborne hyperspectral imagery along Lake Ontario, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shoreline wetlands along Lake Ontario are valuable, multi-functional resources that have historically provided large numbers of important ecosystem goods and services. However, alterations to the lake’s natural hydrologic regime have impacted traditional meadow marsh in the wetlands, resulting in competition and colonization by dense and aggressive Typha angustifolia and Typha x glauca (Cattails). The shift to a Typha-dominated landscape resulted in an array of negative impacts, including increased Typha density, substantial decreases in plant species richness and diversity, and altered habitat and changes in associated ecosystem services. Successful long-term adaptive management of these wetland resources requires timely and accurate monitoring. Historically, wetland landscapes have been surveyed and mapped using field-based surveys and/or photointerpretation. However, given their resource- and cost-intensive nature, these methods are often prohibitively time- and labor-consuming or geographically limited. Other remote sensing applications can provide more rapid and efficient assessments when evaluating wetland change trajectories or analyzing direct and indirect impacts across larger spatial and temporal scales. The primary goal of this study was to develop and describe methodology using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Coastal Mapping Program hyperspectral imagery, light detection and ranging data, and high-spatial resolution true-color imagery to provide updated wetland classifications for Lake Ontario coastal wetlands. This study used existing field-collected vegetation survey data (Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program), ancillary imagery, and existing classification information as training data for a supervised classification approach. These data were used along with a generalized wetland schema (classes based on physical and biological gradients: elevation, Typha, meadow marsh, mixed emergent, upland vegetation) to generate wetland classification data with Kappa values near 0.85. Ultimately, these data and methods provide helpful knowledge elements that will allow for more efficient inventorying and monitoring of Great Lake resources, forecasting of resource condition and stability, and adaptive management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".