Using Bi-Temporal Lidar to Evaluate Canopy Structure and Ecotone Influence on Landsat Vegetation Index Trends Within a Boreal Wetland Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetland ecosystems are sensitive to climate variation, yet tracking vegetation type and structure changes through time remains a challenge. This study examines how Landsat-derived vegetation indices (NDVI and EVI) correspond with lidar-derived canopy height model (CHM) changes from 2000 to 2018 across the wetland landscape of the Peace–Athabasca Delta (PAD), Canada. By comparing CHM change and NDVI and EVI trends across woody and herbaceous land covers, this study fills a gap in understanding long-term vegetation responses in northern wetlands. Findings show that ~35% of the study area experienced canopy growth, while 2% saw a reduction in height. CHM change revealed 11% ecotonal expansion, where shrub and treed swamps encroached on meadow and marsh areas. NDVI and EVI correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with CHM, particularly in shrub swamps (r2 = 0.40, 0.35) and upland forests (NDVI r2 = 0.37). However, EVI trends aligned more strongly with canopy expansion, while NDVI captured mature tree height growth and wetland drying, indicated by rising land surface temperatures (LST). These results highlight the contrasting responses of NDVI and EVI—NDVI being more sensitive to moisture-related changes such as wetland drying, and EVI aligning more closely with canopy structural changes—emphasizing the value of combining lidar and satellite indices to monitor wetland ecosystems in a warming climate.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".