Skip Navigation


Forestry Advance Access originally published online on April 24, 2008
Forestry 2008 81(2):125-134; doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
81/2/125    most recent
cpn003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eskelson, B. N. I.
Right arrow Articles by Barrett, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of stratified and non-stratified most similar neighbour imputation for estimating stand tables

Bianca N. I. Eskelson1, Hailemariam Temesgen1,* and Tara M. Barrett2

1 Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, 280 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5703, USA
2 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Lab, 3301 "C" Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, AK 99503-3954, USA

* Corresponding author. E-mail: hailemariam.temesgen{at}oregonstate.edu


  Abstract

Many growth and yield simulators require a stand table or tree-list to set the initial condition for projections in time. Most similar neighbour (MSN) approaches can be used for estimating stand tables from information commonly available on forest cover maps (e.g. height, volume, per cent canopy cover and species composition). Simulations were used to compare MSN (using an entire database) with two stratified MSN approaches. The first stratified MSN approach used species composition to partition the population into two inventory type strata, while the second stratified MSN approach used average stand age to partition the data into two stand development stages (strata). The MSN approach was used within the whole population and within each stratum to select a reference stand and to impute the ground variables of the reference stand to each target stand. Observed vs estimated stand tables were then compared for the stratified and non-stratified simulations. The imputation within a stratum did not result in better estimates than using the MSN approach within the whole population. Possible reasons for poor performance of stratified MSN are provided.

Received 10 April 2007.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.