Strategies for calculating confidence limits in forest inventories

IF 3.5 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Ecological Modelling Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-21 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2026.111501
Bruno Oliveira Lafetá, Rafael Gomes Leão, Ana Clara Gomes de Queirós, Caroline Junqueira Sartori, Natália Risso Fonseca, Ivan da Costa Ilhéu Fontan
{"title":"Strategies for calculating confidence limits in forest inventories","authors":"Bruno Oliveira Lafetá,&nbsp;Rafael Gomes Leão,&nbsp;Ana Clara Gomes de Queirós,&nbsp;Caroline Junqueira Sartori,&nbsp;Natália Risso Fonseca,&nbsp;Ivan da Costa Ilhéu Fontan","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2026.111501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate confidence intervals for volume are indispensable for planning and decision-making in sustainable forest management and environmental regulation. This study evaluated, through extensive simulations, the robustness of statistical methods for estimating confidence limits. The database comprised simulated datasets from 64 scenarios combining two vegetation typologies, two sample distributions (Normal and Log-normal), four sample sizes (5–20 units), and four variability levels. Generalization was assessed in 28 additional scenarios using Gamma and Weibull distributions to represent conditions in Ombrophilous Forests. Confidence limits (90% probability) were estimated using four methods: (A) classical t-Student; (B) Percentile Bootstrap; (C) Jackknife-<em>z</em>; and (D) a median-based variant of A. Our results demonstrate the superior robustness of the classical Method A. It consistently delivered coverage probabilities nearest the nominal 90% level across all distributions, including symmetric (Normal), positively skewed (Log-normal, Gamma), and negatively skewed (Weibull) conditions. Even for the smallest sample size (n=5), Method A maintained reliable coverage (85.5–96.0%), while resampling methods showed significant undercoverage (often ≤85%), and the median-based approach introduced substantial bias. We conclude that the classical t-based method provides the most reliable confidence limits for inventories with sampling constraints, proving robust under high variability and non-normal data without computationally intensive techniques. These findings, derived from a controlled simulation, provide a robust methodological framework; their application to field data should consider the specific characteristics of the target population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Modelling","volume":"514 ","pages":"Article 111501"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380026000293","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate confidence intervals for volume are indispensable for planning and decision-making in sustainable forest management and environmental regulation. This study evaluated, through extensive simulations, the robustness of statistical methods for estimating confidence limits. The database comprised simulated datasets from 64 scenarios combining two vegetation typologies, two sample distributions (Normal and Log-normal), four sample sizes (5–20 units), and four variability levels. Generalization was assessed in 28 additional scenarios using Gamma and Weibull distributions to represent conditions in Ombrophilous Forests. Confidence limits (90% probability) were estimated using four methods: (A) classical t-Student; (B) Percentile Bootstrap; (C) Jackknife-z; and (D) a median-based variant of A. Our results demonstrate the superior robustness of the classical Method A. It consistently delivered coverage probabilities nearest the nominal 90% level across all distributions, including symmetric (Normal), positively skewed (Log-normal, Gamma), and negatively skewed (Weibull) conditions. Even for the smallest sample size (n=5), Method A maintained reliable coverage (85.5–96.0%), while resampling methods showed significant undercoverage (often ≤85%), and the median-based approach introduced substantial bias. We conclude that the classical t-based method provides the most reliable confidence limits for inventories with sampling constraints, proving robust under high variability and non-normal data without computationally intensive techniques. These findings, derived from a controlled simulation, provide a robust methodological framework; their application to field data should consider the specific characteristics of the target population.
计算森林清单置信限的战略
准确的体积置信区间对于可持续森林管理和环境法规的规划和决策是必不可少的。本研究通过广泛的模拟,评估了估计置信限的统计方法的稳健性。该数据库包括64种情景的模拟数据集,包括两种植被类型、两种样本分布(正态分布和对数正态分布)、四种样本量(5-20个单位)和四种变异性水平。利用伽玛分布和威布尔分布对28个附加情景进行了概化评估。使用四种方法估计置信限(90%概率):(A)经典t-Student;(B)百分位Bootstrap;(C) Jackknife-z;(D) a的基于中位数的变体。我们的结果证明了经典方法a的优越鲁棒性。它在所有分布中始终提供最接近名义90%水平的覆盖概率,包括对称(正态)、正偏态(对数正态、伽玛)和负偏态(威布尔)条件。即使对于最小样本量(n=5),方法A也保持可靠的覆盖率(85.5-96.0%),而重新抽样方法显示明显的覆盖率不足(通常≤85%),并且基于中位数的方法引入了很大的偏差。我们得出结论,基于经典的方法为具有抽样约束的库存提供了最可靠的置信限,证明了在高可变性和非正态数据下的鲁棒性,而无需计算密集型技术。这些发现来自一个受控的模拟,提供了一个强大的方法框架;它们在实地数据中的应用应考虑到目标人群的具体特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Modelling 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
259
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The journal is concerned with the use of mathematical models and systems analysis for the description of ecological processes and for the sustainable management of resources. Human activity and well-being are dependent on and integrated with the functioning of ecosystems and the services they provide. We aim to understand these basic ecosystem functions using mathematical and conceptual modelling, systems analysis, thermodynamics, computer simulations, and ecological theory. This leads to a preference for process-based models embedded in theory with explicit causative agents as opposed to strictly statistical or correlative descriptions. These modelling methods can be applied to a wide spectrum of issues ranging from basic ecology to human ecology to socio-ecological systems. The journal welcomes research articles, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, book reviews, and other communications. The journal also supports the activities of the [International Society of Ecological Modelling (ISEM)](http://www.isemna.org/).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书