Monitoring Changes in the Enhanced Vegetation Index to Inform the Management of Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the absence of forest ecosystem time series data, monitoring proxies such as the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) can inform the capacity of forests to provide ecosystem services. We used MODIS-derived EVI at 250 m and 16-day resolution and Breaks for Additive and Seasonal Trend (BFAST) algorithms to monitor forest EVI changes (breaks and trends) in and around the Algonquin Provincial Park (Ontario, Canada) from 2003 to 2022. We found that relatively little change occurred in forest EVI pixels and that most of the change occurred in non-protected forest areas. Only 5.3% (12,348) of forest pixels experienced one or more EVI breaks and 27.8% showed detectable EVI trends. Most breaks were negative (11,969, 75.3%; positive breaks: 3935, 24.7%) with a median magnitude of change of −755.5 (median positive magnitude: 722.6). A peak of negative breaks (2487, 21%) occurred in the year 2013 while no clear peak was seen among positive breaks. Most breaks (negative and positive) and trends occurred in the eastern region of the study area. Boosted regression trees revealed that the most important predictors of the magnitude of change were forest age, summer droughts, and warm winters. These were among the most important variables that explained the magnitude of negative (R2 = 0.639) and positive breaks (R2 = 0.352). Forest composition and protection status were only marginally important. Future work should focus on assessing spatial clusters of EVI breaks and trends to understand local drivers of forest vegetation health and their potential relation to forest ecosystem services.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".