4.7 Article

Accommodating heteroscedasticity in allometric biomass models

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 505, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119865

关键词

Aboveground biomass; Allometric model; Weighted regression; Error propagation; Homoscedasticity

类别

资金

  1. Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, within PNCDI III [PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-1744]
  2. ERA-NET FACCE ERA-GAS
  3. Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CCCDI - UEFISCDI [82/2017]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [696356]
  5. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [696356] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allometric models for predicting forest biomass often take nonlinear powerlaw forms and accommodating heteroscedasticity in the residual variance is necessary for accurate estimates. Weighting procedures and transformations were tested on biomass models, with some procedures showing more effectiveness in accommodating heteroscedasticity. Adding height as an additional predictor variable was recommended for better estimation accuracy.
Allometric models are commonly used to predict forest biomass. These models typically take nonlinear powerlaw forms that predict individual tree aboveground biomass (AGB) as functions of diameter at breast height (D) and/or tree height (H). Because the residual variance is in most cases heteroscedastic, accommodating the heteroscedasticity (i.e., heterogeneity of variance) becomes necessary when estimating model parameters. We tested several weighting procedures and a logarithmic transformation for nonlinear allometric biomass models. We further evaluated the effectiveness of these procedures with emphasis on how they affected estimates of mean AGB per hectare and their standard errors for large forest areas. Our results revealed that some weighting procedures were more effective for accommodating heteroscedasticity than others and that effectiveness was greater for single predictor models but less for models based on both D and H. Failing to effectively accommodate heteroscedasticity produced small to moderate differences in the estimates of mean AGB per hectare and their standard errors. However, these differences were greater between model forms (models based on D and H versus models based on D only), regardless of the weighting approach. Similar consequences were observed with respect to whether model prediction uncertainty was or was not included when estimating mean AGB per hectare and standard errors. When including model prediction uncertainty, the standard errors of the estimated means increased substantially, by 44-59%. Therefore, to avoid possible negative consequences on large-area biomass estimation, we recommend: (i) testing the effectiveness of a weighting procedure when accommodating heteroscedasticity in allometric biomass models, (ii) incorporating model prediction uncertainty in the total uncertainty estimate and (iii) including H as an additional predictor variable in allometric biomass models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据