Impacts of grazing on vegetation dynamics in a sediment transport complex model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Arid environments are characterized by the complex interaction between vegetation cover, surface soil properties, and the climate. The dynamic balance between these components makes arid environments highly susceptible to swift changes in vegetation cover and in surface morphology in response to climate change. Furthermore, arid environments often support grazing activities, which influence other ecogeomorphic processes and alter the stability of vegetation cover in these environments. Despite the growing knowledge and the parallel modelling advances to simulate the sediment transport, vegetation distribution, and grazing, in arid environments, relatively little progress has been accomplished on the interaction between all these components in combination. Here we present an adaptation of an already established sediment transport-vegetation cellular automata model (Vegetation and Sediment TrAnsport or ViSTA) that represents landscape dynamics, with an agent-based model (GrAM) representing the activity of grazers on the landscape. In this study our resulting model, ViSTA_GrAM, is subjected to a series of 100-year long tests that aim to highlight the capacity of the model to represent ecogeomorphic processes linked to vegetation composition, rainfall, windspeed, and grazing pressure. The new model provides an improved representation of the feedback complexities between grazers and the vegetation, in addition to providing insight on the vegetation and wind shear sensitivity of the original model. The simulations reinforce our current knowledge on the resilience of grass-based landscapes to foraging activities and highlights the need to identify growth response rates at the species level to fully understand the complexity of the interactions between individual components within arid environments. Overall, the ViSTA_GrAM model represents an important improvement for managing arid landscapes over the previously available tools.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".