MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410300361 · doi:10.3389/frsen.2025.1563430

The utility of dynamic forest structure from GEDI lidar fusion in tropical mammal species distribution models

2025· article· en· W4410300361 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of OxfordPantheraRobertson FoundationUnited Nations Development ProgrammeNorthern Arizona UniversityNuclear Safety and Security CommissionWorcester College, University of OxfordNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTropical forestMammalGeographyDistribution (mathematics)EcologyRemote sensingBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing is an important tool for monitoring species habitat spatially and temporally. Species distribution models (SDM) often rely on remotely-sensed geospatial datasets to predict probability of occurrence and infer habitat preferences. Lidar measurements from the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) are shedding light on three dimensional forest structure in regions of the world where this aspect of species habitat has previously been poorly quantified. Here we combine a large camera trap dataset of mammal species in Borneo and Sumatra with a diverse set of geospatial data to predict the probability of occurrence of 47 species. Multi-temporal GEDI predictors were created through fusion with Landsat time series, extending back to the year 2001. The availability of these GEDI-based forest structure predictors and other temporally-resolved predictor variables enabled temporal matching of species occurrences and hindcast predictions of species probability of occurrence at years 2001 and 2021. Our GEDI-Landsat fusion approach worked well for forest structure metrics related to canopy height (relative height of the 95th percentile of returned energy R 2 = 0.62 and relative RMSE = 41%) but, not surprisingly, was less accurate for metrics related to interior canopy vegetation structure (e.g., plant area volume density from 0 to 5 m above the ground R 2 = 0.05 and relative RMSE = 85%). For the SDM analyses, we tested several combinations of predictor sets and found that when considering a large pool of multiscale predictors, the exact composition, and whether GEDI Fusion predictors were included, didn’t have a large impact on generalized linear modeling (GLM) and Random Forest (RF) model performance. Adding GEDI Fusion predictors to a baseline set only meaningfully improved performance for some species (n = 4 for RF and n = 3 for GLM). However, when GEDI Fusion predictors were used in a smaller predictor set that is more suitable for hindcasting species probability of occurrence, more SDMs showed meaningful performance improvements relative to the baseline model (n = 9 for RF and n = 4 for GLM) and the relative importance of GEDI-based canopy structure predictors increased relative to when they were combined with the baseline predictor set. Moreover, as we examined predictor importance and partial dependence, the utility of GEDI Fusion predictors in hindcast models was evident in regards to ecological interpretability. We produced a catalog of probability of occurrence maps for all 47 mammals species at 90 m spatial resolution for years 2001 and 2021, enabling subsequent ecological interpretation and conservation analyses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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