Skip Navigation


Forestry Advance Access originally published online on April 24, 2008
Forestry 2008 81(2):209-225; doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
81/2/209    most recent
cpn014v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, L.
Right arrow Articles by Guo, L.
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

Spatially assessing model errors of four regression techniques for three types of forest stands

Lianjun Zhang1,*, Zhihai Ma1 and Luo Guo2

1 Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
2 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Central University for Nationalities, 27 Zhong-Guan-Cun South Avenue, Beijing 100081, P.R. China

* Corresponding author. E-mail: lizhang{at}esf.edu


  Abstract

In this study, three types of forest stands with different spatial patterns of tree locations were used to investigate the spatial autocorrelation and heterogeneity in model errors from four regression techniques: ordinary least squares (OLS), linear mixed model (LMM), generalized additive model (GAM) and geographically weighted regression (GWR). In uneven-aged stands of softwood and hardwood, trees were clustered or randomly distributed over space. Tree variables were significantly correlated, and the relationship between tree height and diameter was non-stationary across the study area. GAM fitted the data well, but it generated spatial patterns for model errors similar to OLS because GAM is no-spatial in nature. In contrast, LMM and GWR took spatial autocorrelation into account for estimating the model coefficients and the standard errors of the coefficients. Consequently, they produced more accurate predictions for the response variable, as well as more desirable spatial distributions of model errors than those derived from OLS and GAM. The model errors from GWR were not only smaller in spatial autocorrelation but also lower in spatial heterogeneity than those from LMM.

In the pine plantation, trees were more uniform in size, and regularly distributed over space. The relationship between tree height and diameter was also stationary or homogeneous across the study area. In this case, applying spatial models such as LMM and GWR may not have obvious advantages and benefits, while OLS and GAM may be appropriate for fitting the data and predicting the response variable equally well.

Received 2 August 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.