Form factors vs. regression models in volume estimation of  Pinus taeda L. stem

Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto; Dolci, M.; Côrte, Ana Paula Dalla; Sanquetta, Mateus Niroh Inoue; Pelissari, Allan Libanio

doi:10.15361/1984-5529.2017v45n2p175-181

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Estimating the form factor and individual volume for the scaled trees using the ratio estimator proved to be an appropriate method. The values were similar to those found in other studies that used volume estimation models for pine and eucalyptus in Brazil [42][43][44][45][46][47], and they presented a high level of accuracy (relative error under 2%). The 7-year-old Pinus taeda in stand 2 had the best performance (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting Stand Volume by Number of Trees Automatically Detected in UAV Images: An Alternative Method for Forest Inventory

Stolle

Corte

Sanquetta

et al. 2021

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we estimate the forest stock volume by multiplying the number of trees detected remotely by the estimated mean individual volume of the population (individual approach). A comparison was made with the conventional inventory method (area approach), which included 100 simulations of a simple random sampling process and a Bootstrap resampling. The study area included three stands: stand 1, 16-year-old pine; stand 2, 7-year-old pine; and stand 3, 5-year-old eucalyptus. A census was carried out in each stand for the variables diameter and total height. Individual volume was estimated by a ratio estimator, and the sum of all volumes was considered as the total parametric volume. The area approach presented parametric values within the confidence interval for 91%, 94%, and 98% of the simulations for the three stands, respectively. The mean relative errors for the area approach were −3.5% for stand 1, 0.3% for stand 2, and −0.9% for stand 3. The errors in stands 1 and 3 were associated with the spatial distribution of the volume. The individual approach proved to be efficient for all stands, and their respective parametric values were within the confidence interval. The relative errors were 1% for stand 1, −0.7% for stand 2, and 1.8% for stand 3. For stand 1 and 3, this approach yielded better results than the mean values obtained by the area approach simulations (Bootstrap resampling). Future research should evaluate other remote sources of data and other forest conditions.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The individual stem volume is usually determined by adjusted models based on data collected from scaled trees [37,[44][45][46][47]. However, other methods with terrestrial [14,[54][55][56] airborne [11,[57][58][59] or 3-D point clouds derived from UAV imagery [60][61][62][63][64] have also been investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%