Current issue: 56(2)

Under compilation: 56(3)

Scopus CiteScore 2021: 2.8
Scopus ranking of open access forestry journals: 8th
PlanS compliant
Silva Fennica 1926-1997
1990-1997
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
Acta Forestalia Fennica
1953-1968
1933-1952
1913-1932

Articles containing the keyword 'forest inventory methods'

Category: Research article

article id 669, category Research article
Simo Poso, Guangxing Wang, Sakari Tuominen. (1999). Weighting alternative estimates when using multi-source auxiliary data for forest inventory. Silva Fennica vol. 33 no. 1 article id 669. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.669
Keywords: remote sensing; two-phase sampling; forest inventory methods
Abstract | View details | Full text in PDF | Author Info
Five auxiliary data sources (Landsat TM, IRS-IC, digitized aerial photographs, visual photo-interpretation and old forest compartment information) applying three study areas and three estimators, two-phase sampling with stratification, the k nearest neighbors and regression estimator, were examined. Auxiliary data were given for a high number of sample plots, which are here called first phase sample plots. The plots were distributed using a systematic grid over the study areas. Some of the plots were then measured in the field for the necessary ground truth. Each auxiliary data source in combination with field sample information was applied to produce a specific estimator for five forest stand characteristics: mean diameter, mean height, age, basal area, and volume of the growing stock. When five auxiliary data sources were used, each stand characteristic and each first phase sample plot were supplied with five alternative estimates with three alternative estimators. Mean square errors were then calculated for each alternative estimator using the cross validation method. The final estimates were produced by weighting alternative estimates inversely according to the mean square errors related to the corresponding estimator. The result was better than the final estimate of any of the single estimators. The improvement over the best single estimate, as measured in mean square error, was 16.9% on average for all five forest stand characteristics. The improvement was fairly equal for all five forest stand characteristics. Only minor differences among the accuracies of the three alternative estimators were recorded.
  • Poso, Department of Forest Resource Management, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: simo.poso@helsinki.fi (email)
  • Wang, Department of Forest Resource Management, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: gw@nn.fi
  • Tuominen, Department of Forest Resource Management, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: st@nn.fi

Register
Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.
Log in
If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.
Contents alert
Sign up to receive alerts of new content
Your selected articles