Predicting plant species richness in forested landslide zones using geostatistical methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landslides, like most natural disturbances, facilitate the evolution of new plant species. Hence, a detail characterization of topographic conditions can improve the prediction and mapping of species in such complex terrains. Within the Outer (Flysch) Upper Carpathian region, south Poland, we analyze the role of convergence points prepared in a previous study from slope and slope exposition (aspect) data, derived from a 1 m digital elevation model. Convergence points reflected microscale variability in topographic conditions and were analyzed in this study as convergence point density (CPD). Our objective was to use CPD to predict species richness on forested landslides using three geostatistical methods; Ordinary kriging (OK), Ordinary cokriging (OCK), and regression kriging (RK). Our results showed a relatively high correlation (r ∼ 0.65) between species richness and CPD compared to slope or slope exposition or with both. OCK and RK generally improved prediction. However, the application of cokriging in such terrains remains challenging and will not be appropriate, particularly if species richness has a small sample size. RK outperformed OK and OCK, decreasing the root mean square error (RMSE) by 33% and 10%, respectively. RK was also more robust to topographic heterogeneity and the limited number of observations than OCK. We conclude that a denser sampling of species composition or a more robust indicator is needed to improve these results. Notwithstanding these limitations, our results can be used as the first step to support short-term conservation efforts, especially when time-dependent changes in species composition are unimportant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".