Critical Height Versus Importance Sampling for Log Volume: Does Critical Height Prevail?
Abstract:The estimator developed in Van Deusen (1987) is generalized to allow for unbiased estimation of log or tree volume using the critical height method. Comparisons are made with importance sampling (Gregoire et al. 1986) that suggest that the critical height method is more efficient and robust. The critical height method also requires fewer computations in the field. For. Sci. 36(4):930-938.
Document Type: Journal Article
Affiliations: Mathematical Statistician, USDA Forest Service, Institute for Quantitative Studies, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 701 Loyola Ave., New Orleans, LA 70113
Publication date: 1990-12-01
More about this publication?
- Forest Science is a peer-reviewed journal publishing fundamental and applied research that explores all aspects of natural and social sciences as they apply to the function and management of the forested ecosystems of the world. Topics include silviculture, forest management, biometrics, economics, entomology & pathology, fire & fuels management, forest ecology, genetics & tree improvement, geospatial technologies, harvesting & utilization, landscape ecology, operations research, forest policy, physiology, recreation, social sciences, soils & hydrology, and wildlife management.
Forest Science is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December.
2015 Impact Factor: 1.702
Ranking: 16 of 66 in forestry
Average time from submission to first decision: 62.5 days*
June 1, 2016 to Feb. 28, 2017
Also published by SAF:
Journal of Forestry
Other SAF Publications
- Submit a Paper
- Membership Information
- Author Guidelines
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites