James A Westfall, Mark D Nelson, Christopher B Edgar
{"title":"Applying Ratio-of-Means Estimation for Annualized Components of Volume Change in Forest Resource Monitoring","authors":"James A Westfall, Mark D Nelson, Christopher B Edgar","doi":"10.1093/forsci/fxae024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forest inventory estimates of annualized net growth, removals, and mortality provide a standardized metric for a wide range of management and policy assessments. Commonly, plot-level annualized values are determined by dividing the periodic change by the length of the time interval. Subsequent estimation of means constitutes a mean-of-ratios (MOR) estimation approach. However, due to potential bias concerns for the MOR estimator, the ratio-of-means (ROM) estimator is generally preferred by forestry practitioners. National forest inventory data from six states in the United States were used to compare MOR and ROM annualized change estimation. Generally, MOR and ROM performed similarly when there was little variation among plot measurement intervals. Differences between MOR and ROM increased as variability among measurement intervals increased, with the largest observed differences being in the 3%–4% range. The ROM estimator also resulted in more precise estimates than MOR, although in many cases the differences were trivial. ROM estimation can be negatively affected if the mean of the measurement intervals assigned to unvisited nonforest plots is incongruent with the mean for forested field–visited plots. Nonetheless, if this complication is not present or can be ameliorated, the ROM estimator appears to perform better than MOR across various populations. Study Implications: Forest inventory volume change results are usually reported on a per-year basis to make them more interpretable by data users. This study compared the use of the typical mean-of-ratios (MOR) approach with an alternative ratio-of-means (ROM) concept. In a simulation study that examined six different populations of forest inventory plots, the ROM method generally had smaller bias and uncertainty statistics than the MOR approach. Thus, the ROM estimation offers forest inventory practitioners a more robust method for calculating annualized change statistics. The use of accurate estimations to inform management and policy decisions is critical to effective stewardship of forest resources.","PeriodicalId":12749,"journal":{"name":"Forest Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxae024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Forest inventory estimates of annualized net growth, removals, and mortality provide a standardized metric for a wide range of management and policy assessments. Commonly, plot-level annualized values are determined by dividing the periodic change by the length of the time interval. Subsequent estimation of means constitutes a mean-of-ratios (MOR) estimation approach. However, due to potential bias concerns for the MOR estimator, the ratio-of-means (ROM) estimator is generally preferred by forestry practitioners. National forest inventory data from six states in the United States were used to compare MOR and ROM annualized change estimation. Generally, MOR and ROM performed similarly when there was little variation among plot measurement intervals. Differences between MOR and ROM increased as variability among measurement intervals increased, with the largest observed differences being in the 3%–4% range. The ROM estimator also resulted in more precise estimates than MOR, although in many cases the differences were trivial. ROM estimation can be negatively affected if the mean of the measurement intervals assigned to unvisited nonforest plots is incongruent with the mean for forested field–visited plots. Nonetheless, if this complication is not present or can be ameliorated, the ROM estimator appears to perform better than MOR across various populations. Study Implications: Forest inventory volume change results are usually reported on a per-year basis to make them more interpretable by data users. This study compared the use of the typical mean-of-ratios (MOR) approach with an alternative ratio-of-means (ROM) concept. In a simulation study that examined six different populations of forest inventory plots, the ROM method generally had smaller bias and uncertainty statistics than the MOR approach. Thus, the ROM estimation offers forest inventory practitioners a more robust method for calculating annualized change statistics. The use of accurate estimations to inform management and policy decisions is critical to effective stewardship of forest resources.
森林资源清查对年净增长量、清除量和死亡率的估算为各种管理和政策评估提供了标准化的衡量标准。通常,地块级年化值是通过将周期性变化除以时间间隔长度来确定的。随后的均值估算是一种均值比(MOR)估算方法。然而,由于 MOR 估算法存在潜在的偏差问题,林业从业人员通常更倾向于采用均值比 (ROM) 估算法。美国六个州的国家森林资源清查数据被用来比较 MOR 和 ROM 年化变化估算。一般来说,在地块测量间隔变化不大的情况下,MOR 和 ROM 的表现类似。随着测量区间变化的增加,MOR 和 ROM 之间的差异也随之增加,观察到的最大差异在 3%-4% 之间。ROM 估算值也比 MOR 估算值更精确,尽管在很多情况下两者之间的差异微乎其微。如果分配给未访问的非森林地块的测量间隔平均值与实地访问的森林地块的平均值不一致,则会对 ROM 估算产生负面影响。尽管如此,如果不存在这种复杂情况或这种情况可以得到改善,那么在不同的种群中,ROM 估计法的表现似乎比 MOR 更好。研究意义:森林蓄积量变化结果通常以年为单位报告,以便数据用户更容易解读。本研究比较了典型的平均比率(MOR)方法和另一种平均比率(ROM)概念。在对六个不同的森林资源清查地块进行的模拟研究中,ROM 方法的偏差和不确定性统计量普遍小于 MOR 方法。因此,ROM 估算法为森林资源调查工作者提供了一种更稳健的年化变化统计计算方法。利用准确的估算为管理和政策决策提供信息,对于有效管理森林资源至关重要。
期刊介绍:
Forest Science is a peer-reviewed journal publishing fundamental and applied research that explores all aspects of natural and social sciences as they apply to the function and management of the forested ecosystems of the world. Topics include silviculture, forest management, biometrics, economics, entomology & pathology, fire & fuels management, forest ecology, genetics & tree improvement, geospatial technologies, harvesting & utilization, landscape ecology, operations research, forest policy, physiology, recreation, social sciences, soils & hydrology, and wildlife management.
Forest Science is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December.