Vegetation and vantage point influence visibility across diverse ecosystems: Implications for animal ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual information can influence animal behavior and habitat use in diverse ways. Visibility is the property that relates 3D habitat structure to accessibility of visual information. Despite the importance of visibility in animal ecology, this property remains largely unstudied. Our objective was to assess how habitat structure from diverse environments and animal position within that structure can influence visibility. We gathered terrestrial lidar data (1 cm at 10 m) in four ecosystems (forest, shrub-steppe, prairie, and desert) to characterize viewsheds (i.e., estimates of visibility based on spatially explicit sightlines) from multiple vantage points. Both ecosystem-specific structure and animal position influenced potential viewsheds. Generally, as height of the vantage point above the ground increased, viewshed extent also increased, but the relationships were not linear. In low-structure ecosystems (prairie, shrub-steppe, and desert), variability in viewsheds decreased as vantage points increased to heights above the vegetation canopy. In the forest, however, variation in viewsheds was highest at intermediate heights, and markedly lower at the lowest and highest vantage points. These patterns are likely linked to the amount, heterogeneity, and distribution of vegetation structure occluding sightlines. Our work is the first to apply a new method that can be used to estimate viewshed properties relevant to animals (i.e., viewshed extent and variability). We demonstrate that these properties differ across terrestrial landscapes in complex ways that likely influence many facets of animal ecology and behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".