Climate Predicts <scp>NDVI</scp> Better Than Plant Functional Group Attributes Along a Latitudinal Gradient in Nunavik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim This study aims to describe the latitudinal pattern in plant functional groups' (PFGs') biomass and cover in Nunavik to test whether PFG attributes are better Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) predictors than climate. Location The study spans a 700‐km latitudinal gradient from the lichen woodland to prostrate shrub tundra vegetation zones across Nunavik, Canada. Taxon Our analysis focuses on the following PFGs: erect and prostrate shrubs, herbaceous plants, bryophytes, and lichens. Methods Biomass and cover data of the different PFGs were sampled in 40 sites distributed across the latitudinal gradient. NDVI data were obtained through remote sensing, while climatic, permafrost depth, and surficial deposits were derived from various databases. The PFG models were built to explore relationships between average NDVI (2016–2020) at the sampling site and ecological attributes such as PFG biomass or cover but also other variables such as surficial deposits and permafrost depth. A second series of models, the climatic models, were built using only climatic variables such as seasonal temperature and precipitation. Results The most parsimonious PFG model was built with the biomass data of erect shrubs, herbaceous plants, bryophytes, and lichens and included surficial deposits and permafrost depth ( R 2 = 0.74). This biomass model performed better than the most parsimonious cover model (cover of erect shrubs and herbaceous, surficial deposits, permafrost depth; R 2 = 0.63). However, the most parsimonious climatic model (fall temperature, annual, and winter precipitations) exhibited superior predictive power compared to the ecological ones ( R 2 = 0.87). Conclusions PFG models built with PFGs aboveground biomass or cover are good predictors of NDVI of the plant formations sampled along the latitudinal gradient in Nunavik. Despite the intrinsic association between NDVI and vegetation attributes, our study emphasizes the importance of the regional climate in the control of primary productivity in Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. This study provides new insights into the interpretation of NDVI data and enhances our understanding of Arctic vegetation responses under rapid climate change. Furthermore, it underscores the balance between climatic drivers and ecological dynamics in shaping fragile Arctic ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".