The stand density index, one of the most important metrics for managing site occupancy, is generally calculated from empirical data by means of a coefficient derived from the self-thinning rule or stand density model. I undertook an exploratory analysis of model fitting based on simulated data. I discuss the use of the logarithmic transformation (i.e., linearisation) of the relationship between the total number of trees per hectare (N) and the quadratic mean diameter of the stand (QMD). I compare the classic method used by Reineke (J Agric Res 46:627-638, 1933), i.e., linear OLS model fitting after logarithmic transformation of data, with the pure power-law model, which represents the native mathematical structure of this relationship. I evaluated the results according to the correlation between N and QMD. Linear OLS and nonlinear fitting agreed in the estimation of coefficients only for highly correlated (between -1 and -0.85) or poorly correlated (>-0.39) datasets. At average correlation values (i.e., between -0.75 and -0.4), it is probable that for practical applications, the differences were relevant, especially concerning the key coefficient for Reineke's stand density index calculation. This introduced a non-negligible bias in SDI calculation. The linearised log-log model always estimated a lower slope term than did the exponent of the nonlinear function except at the extremes of the correlation range. While the logarithmic transformation is mathematically correct and always equivalent to a nonlinear model in case of prediction of the dependent variable, the difference detected in my studies between the two methods (i.e., coefficient estimation) was directly related to the correlation between N and QMD in each simulated/disturbed dataset. In general, given the power law as the natural structure of the N versus QMD relationship, the nonlinear model is preferred, with a logarithmic transformation used only in the case of violation of parametric assumptions (e.g. data distributed non-normally).
Nonlinear versus linearised model on stand density model fitting and stand density index calculation: analysis of coefficients estimation via simulation
Marchi, Maurizio
2019
Abstract
The stand density index, one of the most important metrics for managing site occupancy, is generally calculated from empirical data by means of a coefficient derived from the self-thinning rule or stand density model. I undertook an exploratory analysis of model fitting based on simulated data. I discuss the use of the logarithmic transformation (i.e., linearisation) of the relationship between the total number of trees per hectare (N) and the quadratic mean diameter of the stand (QMD). I compare the classic method used by Reineke (J Agric Res 46:627-638, 1933), i.e., linear OLS model fitting after logarithmic transformation of data, with the pure power-law model, which represents the native mathematical structure of this relationship. I evaluated the results according to the correlation between N and QMD. Linear OLS and nonlinear fitting agreed in the estimation of coefficients only for highly correlated (between -1 and -0.85) or poorly correlated (>-0.39) datasets. At average correlation values (i.e., between -0.75 and -0.4), it is probable that for practical applications, the differences were relevant, especially concerning the key coefficient for Reineke's stand density index calculation. This introduced a non-negligible bias in SDI calculation. The linearised log-log model always estimated a lower slope term than did the exponent of the nonlinear function except at the extremes of the correlation range. While the logarithmic transformation is mathematically correct and always equivalent to a nonlinear model in case of prediction of the dependent variable, the difference detected in my studies between the two methods (i.e., coefficient estimation) was directly related to the correlation between N and QMD in each simulated/disturbed dataset. In general, given the power law as the natural structure of the N versus QMD relationship, the nonlinear model is preferred, with a logarithmic transformation used only in the case of violation of parametric assumptions (e.g. data distributed non-normally).File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Marchi2019_Article_NonlinearVersusLinearisedModel.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
1.1 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.1 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.