The environmental drivers of tree cover and forest–savanna mosaics in Southeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest–savanna mosaics exist across all major tropical regions. Yet, the influence of environmental factors on the distribution of these mosaics is not well explored, limiting our understanding of the environmental constraints on savannas especially in Southeast Asia, where most savannas exist in mosaics. Despite clear structural and functional characteristics indicative of savannas, most SE Asian savannas continue to be classified as forest. This designation is problematic because SE Asian savannas are threatened by both fragmentation and forest‐centric management practices. By studying forest–savanna mosaics across SE Asia, we aimed to parse out how landscape mosaics of forest and savanna may be constrained by fire, climate and soil characteristics. We used remotely sensed data to characterize the distribution of tree cover and forest–savanna mosaics. Using regression models, we quantified the relative effects of precipitation, fire frequency, seasonality and soil characteristics on average tree cover and landscape patchiness. We found that low tree cover, indicative of savannas, occurs in drier, seasonal subregions that experience frequent fire. Further, our results demonstrate that fire and precipitation strongly shape landscape patchiness. Landscapes were patchiest in subregions with low precipitation and intermediate fire frequency. These results demonstrate that the environmental factors important in delineating the distribution of savannas globally shape the distribution of tree cover and landscape patchiness across SE Asia. Fire especially drives patterns of tree cover across scales. In a region where fire suppression is a common management strategy, our results suggest that further research studying vegetation response to fire and fire suppression is needed to improve management and conservation of these mosaic landscapes. More broadly, this work demonstrates a useful approach for studying the environmental drivers that influence the distribution of forest–savanna mosaics.
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".