Two-phase approaches to point and transect relascope sampling of downed logs.
Abstract
Abstract
Point relascope sampling and transect relascope sampling were recently proposed as methods for the inventory of downed coarse woody debris. By only counting logs with a relascope device, the total length squared (with point relascope sampling) or the total length (with transect relascope sampling) of downed logs in an area can be estimated. For estimates of other variables, such as volume, additional measurements on the sampled logs are required. In this article, two-phase approaches to the methods are presented that makes use of the estimates from fast counts of logs as auxiliary data. The presented approaches serve two purposes: (i) to improve the efficiency of the methods and (ii) to avoid the bias that is likely to occur if careful checks of whether or not doubtful logs should be counted are neglected. Each two-phase design was compared with a single-phase design in terms of the standard error obtained for a given inventory cost. The two-phase designs decreased the standard errors with ca. 17-18% for points and 10-15% for lines. Including subjective judgements as additional auxiliary variables further decreased the standard errors in the line case but not in the point case. In the former case, the improvement in comparison with the single-phase design was 17-23%.
Department
Natural Resources and the Environment
Publication Date
2001
Journal Title
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Publisher
NRC Press
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.1139/cjfr-31-6-971
Document Type
Article
Recommended Citation
Ringvall, Anna; Stahl, Goran; Teichmann, Vera; Gove, Jeffrey H.; and Ducey, Mark J., "Two-phase approaches to point and transect relascope sampling of downed logs." (2001). Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44.
https://scholars.unh.edu/nren_facpub/44
Rights
Ringvall, A., Ståhl, G., Teichmann, V., Gove, J.H., Ducey, M.J. Two-phase approaches to point and transect relascope sampling of downed logs. (2001) Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31 (6), pp. 971-977. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-31-6-971