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, Rafael Gomes Leão, Ana Clara Gomes de Queirós, Caroline Junqueira Sartori, Natália Risso Fonseca, 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.
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/).