Foliar spectra accurately distinguish most temperate tree species and show strong phylogenetic signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Spectroscopy is a powerful remote sensing tool for monitoring plant biodiversity over broad geographic areas. Increasing evidence suggests that foliar spectral reflectance can be used to identify trees at the species level. However, most studies have focused on only a limited number of species at a time, and few studies have explored the underlying phylogenetic structure of leaf spectra. Accurate species identifications are important for reliable estimations of biodiversity from spectral data. METHODS: Using over 3500 leaf-level spectral measurements, we evaluated whether foliar reflectance spectra (400-2400 nm) can accurately differentiate most tree species from a regional species pool in eastern North America. We explored relationships between spectral, phylogenetic, and leaf functional trait variation as well as their influence on species classification using a hurdle regression model. RESULTS: Spectral reflectance accurately differentiated tree species (κ = 0.736, ±0.005). Foliar spectra showed strong phylogenetic signal, and classification errors from foliar spectra, although present at higher taxonomic levels, were found predominantly between closely related species, often of the same genus. In addition, we find functional and phylogenetic distance broadly control the occurrence and frequency of spectral classification mistakes among species. CONCLUSIONS: Our results further support the link between leaf spectral diversity, taxonomic hierarchy, and phylogenetic and functional diversity, and highlight the potential of spectroscopy to remotely sense plant biodiversity and vegetation response to global change.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".