MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249654170 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.913

Relationships of NDVI, Biomass, and Leaf Area Index (LAI) for six key plant species in Barrow, Alaska

2015· preprint· en· W4249654170 on OpenAlexaff
Santonu Goswami, John A. Gamon, S. A. Vargas, C. Tweedie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Leaf area indexNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceCarexAgronomySpecific leaf areaBotanyBiologyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we investigate relationships between NDVI, Biomass, and Leaf Area Index (LAI) for six key plant species near Barrow, Alaska. We explore how key plant species differ in biomass, leaf area index (LAI) and how can vegetation spectral indices be used to estimate biomass and LAI for key plant species. A vegetation index (VI) or a spectral vegetation index (SVI) is a quantitative predictor of plant biomass or vegetative vigor, usually formed from combinations of several spectral bands, whose values are added, divided, or multiplied in order to yield a single value that indicates the amount or vigor of vegetation. For six key plant species, NDVI was strongly correlated with biomass (R2 = 0.83) and LAI (R2 = 0.70) but showed evidence of saturation above a biomass of 100 g/m2 and an LAI of 2 m2/m2. Extrapolation of a biomass-plant cover model to a multi-decadal time series of plant cover observations suggested that Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum angustifolium decreased in biomass while Arctophila fulva and Dupontia fisheri increased 1972-2008.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207