Abstract

National forest inventories (NFI), such as the one conducted by the United States Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, provide valuable information regarding the status of forests at regional to national scales. However, forest managers often need information at stand to landscape scales. Given various small area estimation (SAE) approaches, including design-based and model-based estimation, it may not be clear which is most appropriate for the user’s application. In this study, our objective was to assess the uncertainty in tree aboveground live carbon (ALC) estimates for differing modes of SAE across multiple scales to provide guidance for appropriate scales of application. We calculated means and variances for ALC with design-based (Horvitz-Thompson), model-assisted (generalized regression), and model-based (k-nearest neighbor synthetic) estimators for estimation units over a range of sizes for 30 subregions in California, United States. For larger areas (10,000–64,800 ha), relative efficiencies greater than one indicated that the generalized regression estimator (GREG) generated estimates with less error than the Horvitz-Thompson estimator (HT), while the bias-adjusted synthetic estimator relative efficiency compared to either the Horvitz-Thompson or model-assisted estimators exceeded one for areas 25,000 ha and smaller. Variance estimates from the unadjusted synthetic estimator underestimated the total error, because the estimator ignores bias and thus only addresses model variance. Across scales (250–64,800 ha, 0–27 plots per area of interest), 93% of the variation in the synthetic estimator’s relative standard error was explained by forest area, forest dominance, and regional variation in forest landscapes. Our results support model-assisted estimation use except for small areas where few plots (<10 in the current study) are available for generating estimates in spite of biases in estimates. However, users should exercise caution when interpreting model-based estimates of error as they may not account for model mis-specification, and thus induced bias. This research explored multiple scales of application for SAE procedures applied to NFI data regarding carbon pools, potentially supporting a multi-scale approach to forest monitoring. Our results guides users in developing defensible estimates of carbon pools, particularly as it relates to the limits of inference at a variety of spatial scales.

Highlights

  • National forest inventories (NFI), such as the one conducted by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, provide valuable information regarding the status of forests at regional to national scales

  • We found that generating variance estimates within 1% of the estimate based on all pixels depended on several factors, including areas of interest (AOI) area and proportion of pixels being sampled

  • For 10,000-ha AOIs, sampling 7% of pixels resulted in most variance estimates being within 1% of the estimate using all pixels, whereas 15% were required to ensure that most estimates were within 0.5%

Read more

Summary

Introduction

National forest inventories (NFI), such as the one conducted by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, provide valuable information regarding the status of forests at regional to national scales. FIA data are critical to generating estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes and developing and testing ecosystem models in support of planning and reporting of carbon stocks and dynamics in the United States (Tinkham et al, 2018). Such data may be essential for regional assessments, such as forest resource reports describing status and trends in forest attributes like forest area, tree species composition, stand structure, and forest carbon pools (e.g., Brodie and Palmer, 2020). The national consistency in NFI data generates efficiencies for assessment, planning, and monitoring (sensu Wurtzebach et al, 2019), but the utility of NFIs for generating reliable forest attribute estimates at stand to landscape scales remains challenging

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call