Spatial modeling of rangeland potential vegetation environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potential vegetation environments (e.g., habitat types, range sites, ecological sites) are important to land managers because they provide a conceptual basis for the description of resource potentials and ecological integrity. Efficient use of potential vegetation classifications in regional or subregional scale assessments of ecosystem health has been limited to date, however, because traditional ecological unit mapping procedures often treat such classifications as ancillary information in the map unit description. Accordingly, it is difficult, if not impossible, to describe the precise location, patch size, and spatial arrangement of potential vegetation environments from most traditional ecological unit maps. Recent advances in remote sensing, geographic information systems (GIS), terrain modeling, and climate interpolation facilitate the direct mapping of potential vegetation through a predictive process based on gradient analysis and ecological niche theory. In this paper, we describe how a predictive vegetation mapping process was used to develop a 30 m raster-based map of 4 grassland, 5 shrubland, and 6 woodland habitat types across the Little Missouri National Grasslands, North Dakota. Discriminant analysis was used in developing this potential vegetation map based on 6 primary geographic information system themes. Geoclimatic subsections and remotely sensed vegetation lifeform maps were used in predictive model stratification. Terrain indices, LANDSAT satellite imagery, and interpolated climate information were used as independent (predictor) variables in model construction. A total of 616 field plots with known habitat type membership were used as dependent variables and assessed by a jackknife discriminant analysis procedure. Accuracy values of our map ranged from 54 to 77% in grasslands, 62 to 100% in shrublands, and 70 to 100% in woodlands dependent on geoclimatic subsection setting. Techniques are also described for generalizing the 30 m pixel resolution habitat type map to appropriate ecological unit maps (e.g., landtype associations) for use in ecosystem health assessments and land use planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".