4.4 Article

Uncertainty assessment in aboveground biomass estimation at the regional scale using a new method considering both sampling error and model error

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 1095-1103

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0436

关键词

aboveground biomass estimation; uncertainty assessment; Monte Carlo simulation; model error; sample size for model fitting

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170588]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China from Chinese Academy of Forestry [2012AA12A306]
  3. Scientific Research Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality from Shanghai Academy of Landscape Architecture Science and Planning [15dz1208104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uncertainty associated with multiple sources of error exists in biomass estimation over large areas. This uncertainty affects the accuracy of the resultant biomass estimates. A new method that introduces Taylor series principles into a Monte Carlo simulation procedure was proposed and developed for estimating regional-scale aboveground biomass, along with quantifying the corresponding uncertainty arising from both sampling and model predictions. Additionally, the effect of sample size on estimates during model fitting was studied based on the new method to determine whether the effect of the size of the calibration data set can be neglected when the number of simulations is sufficiently large. The results revealed that the proposed method not only produces more reliable estimates of both biomass and uncertainty but also effectively and separately quantifies the uncertainties associated with different sources of error. The new method also reduced the effect of model uncertainty on final estimates. The uncertainty that was associated with model error increased significantly with decreasing sample sizes during model fitting, and the error was not reduced by increasing the number of Monte Carlo simulations.

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

4.4
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