Satellite Time Series and Google Earth Engine Democratize the Process of Forest-Recovery Monitoring over Large Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary forest-health initiatives require technologies and workflows that can monitor forest degradation and recovery simply and efficiently over large areas. Spectral recovery analysis—the examination of spectral trajectories in satellite time series—can help democratize this process, particularly when performed with cloud computing and open-access satellite archives. We used the Landsat archive and Google Earth Engine (GEE) to track spectral recovery across more than 57,000 forest harvest areas in the Canadian province of Alberta. We analyzed changes in the normalized burn ratio (NBR) to document a variety of recovery metrics, including year of harvest, percent recovery after five years, number of years required to achieve 80% of pre-disturbance NBR, and % recovery the end of our monitoring window (2018). We found harvest areas in Alberta to recover an average of 59.9% of their pre-harvest NBR after five years. The mean number of years required to achieve 80% recovery in the province was 8.7 years. We observed significant variability in pre- and post-harvest spectral recovery both regionally and locally, demonstrating the importance of climate, elevation, and complex local factors on rates of spectral recovery. These findings are comparable to those reported in other studies and demonstrate the potential for our workflow to support broad-scale management and research objectives in a manner that is complimentary to existing information sources. Measures of spectral recovery for all 57,979 harvest areas in our analysis are freely available and browseable via a custom GEE visualization tool, further demonstrating the accessibility of this information to stakeholders and interested members of the public.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".