MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404945267 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.28.625964

Predicting woodland bird species habitat with multi-temporal and multisensor remote sensing data

2024· preprint· en· W4404945267 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Jade Kuzmich, Ross A. Hill, Shelley A. Hinsley, Paul E. Bellamy, Markus Melin, Paul Treitz

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingCanopyEnvironmental scienceHabitatStandard deviationRandom forestLand coverTree canopyGeographyEcologyLand useMathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Remote sensing data capture ecologically important information that can be used to characterize, model and predict bird habitat. This study implements fusion techniques using Random Forests (RF) with spectral Landsat data and structural airborne laser scanning (ALS) data to scale habitat attributes through time and to characterize habitat for four bird species in dynamic young forest environments in the United Kingdom. We use multi-temporal (2000, 2005, 2012/13, 2015) multi-sensor (Landsat and ALS) data to (i) predict structural attributes via pixel-level fusion at 30 metre spatial resolution, (ii) model bird habitat via object-level fusion and compare with models based on ALS, Landsat and predicted structural attributes, and (iii) predict bird habitat through time (i.e., predict 2015 habitat based on 2000-2012 data). First, we found that models predicting mean height from spectral information had the highest accuracy, whilst maximum height, standard deviation of heights, foliage height diversity, canopy cover and canopy relief ratio had good accuracy, and entropy had low accuracy. The green band and the normalized burn ratio (NBR) were consistently important for prediction, with the red and shortwave infrared (SWIR) 1 bands also important. For all structural variables, high values were underpredicted and low values were overpredicted. Second, for Blue Tit ( Cyanistes caeruleus ) and Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ), the most accurate model employed Landsat data, while object-level fusion performed best for Chiffchaff ( Phylloscopus collybita ) and Willow Warbler ( Phylloscopus trochilus ). ALS mean, maximum and standard deviation of heights and Landsat tasseled cap transformations (TCT) (i.e., wetness, greenness and brightness) were ranked as important to all species across various models. Third, we used our models to predict presence in 2015 and implemented a spatial intersection approach to assess the predictive accuracy for each species. Blue Tit and Willow Warbler presences were well predicted with the Landsat, ALS, and objectlevel fusion models. Chaffinch and Chiffchaff presences were best predicted with the ALS model. Predictions based on pixel-level predicted structure surfaces had low accuracy but were acceptable for Chaffinch and Willow Warbler. This study is significant as it provides guidance for Landsat and ALS data application and fusion in habitat modelling. Our results highlight the need to use appropriate remote sensing data for each study species based on their ecology. Object-level data fusion improved habitat characterization for all species relative to ALS, but not to Landsat for Blue Tit and Chaffinch. Pixel-level fusion for predicting structural attributes in years where ALS data are note available is increasingly being used in modelling but may not adequately represent within-patch wildlife habitat. Finally, incorporating predicted surfaces generated through pixel-level fusion in our habitat models yielded low accuracy. Highlights We used object- and pixel-level fusion with ALS and Landsat to examine bird habitat Pixel-level fusion predicted surfaces yielded low accuracy in habitat models Best models: Landsat (Blue Tit, Chaffinch); fusion (Chiffchaff, Willow Warbler) Best prediction: ALS (Chaffinch, Chiffchaff) Best prediction: ALS, Landsat, object-level fusion (Blue Tit, Willow Warbler) Graphical abstract

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→