Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Francio, Jonas, Santos, Juliano de Paula, Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto, Corte, Ana Paula Dalla
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)
DOI: 10.4336/2015.pfb.35.83.638
Texto Completo: https://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/638
Resumo: This study aimed to compare three sampling methods: fixed area, Bitterlich, and Prodan, regarding accuracy and relative efficiency to estimate the variables: diameter at 1.30 m above soil level (DBH), number of trees, basal area, and volume. The limit of error established was 10% at probability level of 95%, using 30 plots for each method. Circumference at 1.30 m above soil level was measured, for conversion in DBH, with total time counted since the plots installation until the last tree measured. The most accurate sampling was the fixed area method, for estimation of DBH and number of trees per hectare, whereas the Bitterlich method was the most accurate for estimation of basal area and volume. Bitterlich method proved to be more efficient for estimation of all variables. It can be concluded that the accuracy is not directly associated with relative efficiency, and that less usual sampling.
id EMBRAPA-5_d65364299af4684b1f14dbaa5b6ae54d
oai_identifier_str oai:pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb:article/638
network_acronym_str EMBRAPA-5
network_name_str Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)
spelling Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teakPrecisão e eficiência relativa de métodos de amostragem em tecaForest inventoryForest plantationsTectona grandisInventário florestal Plantios florestaisTectona grandisThis study aimed to compare three sampling methods: fixed area, Bitterlich, and Prodan, regarding accuracy and relative efficiency to estimate the variables: diameter at 1.30 m above soil level (DBH), number of trees, basal area, and volume. The limit of error established was 10% at probability level of 95%, using 30 plots for each method. Circumference at 1.30 m above soil level was measured, for conversion in DBH, with total time counted since the plots installation until the last tree measured. The most accurate sampling was the fixed area method, for estimation of DBH and number of trees per hectare, whereas the Bitterlich method was the most accurate for estimation of basal area and volume. Bitterlich method proved to be more efficient for estimation of all variables. It can be concluded that the accuracy is not directly associated with relative efficiency, and that less usual sampling.Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar três métodos de amostragem: área fixa, Bitterlich e Prodan, quanto à precisão e eficiência relativa na estimativa das variáveis, diâmetro a 1,30 m do solo (DAP), número de árvores, área basal e volume total. Foi fixado um limite de erro em 10% em um nível de probabilidade de 95%, utilizando-se 30 parcelas para cada método. Foram mensuradas as circunferências a 1,30 m do solo, para posterior conversão em DAP, e cronometrado os tempos totais desde a instalação das parcelas até a mensuração da última árvore. Para as estimativas das variáveis DAP e número de árvores por hectare, o método de área fixa foi o mais preciso. No entanto, para estimativa de área basal e volume o método de Bitterlich mostrou-se mais preciso. O método de Bitterlich mostrou-se o mais eficiente para estimativa de todas as variáveis. Pode-se concluir que a precisão não está diretamente associada à eficiência relativa e que métodos de amostragem menos usuais que o de área fixa podem ser utilizados com precisão e eficiência em inventários florestais.Embrapa Florestas2015-09-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/63810.4336/2015.pfb.35.83.638Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira; v. 35 n. 83 (2015): jul./set.; 247-254Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira; Vol. 35 No. 83 (2015): jul./set.; 247-2541983-26051809-3647reponame:Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPAporhttps://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/638/432Miranda, Dirceu Lucio CarneiroFrancio, JonasSantos, Juliano de PaulaSanquetta, Carlos RobertoCorte, Ana Paula Dallainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2017-04-28T12:42:02Zoai:pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb:article/638Revistahttps://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/PUBhttps://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/oaipfb@embrapa.br || revista.pfb@gmail.com || patricia.mattos@embrapa.br1983-26051809-3647opendoar:2017-04-28T12:42:02Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
Precisão e eficiência relativa de métodos de amostragem em teca
title Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
spellingShingle Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Forest inventory
Forest plantations
Tectona grandis
Inventário floresta
l Plantios florestais
Tectona grandis
Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Forest inventory
Forest plantations
Tectona grandis
Inventário floresta
l Plantios florestais
Tectona grandis
title_short Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
title_full Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
title_fullStr Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
title_full_unstemmed Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
title_sort Precision and relative efficiency of sampling methods in teak
author Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
author_facet Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Francio, Jonas
Santos, Juliano de Paula
Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto
Corte, Ana Paula Dalla
Francio, Jonas
Santos, Juliano de Paula
Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto
Corte, Ana Paula Dalla
author_role author
author2 Francio, Jonas
Santos, Juliano de Paula
Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto
Corte, Ana Paula Dalla
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Miranda, Dirceu Lucio Carneiro
Francio, Jonas
Santos, Juliano de Paula
Sanquetta, Carlos Roberto
Corte, Ana Paula Dalla
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Forest inventory
Forest plantations
Tectona grandis
Inventário floresta
l Plantios florestais
Tectona grandis
topic Forest inventory
Forest plantations
Tectona grandis
Inventário floresta
l Plantios florestais
Tectona grandis
description This study aimed to compare three sampling methods: fixed area, Bitterlich, and Prodan, regarding accuracy and relative efficiency to estimate the variables: diameter at 1.30 m above soil level (DBH), number of trees, basal area, and volume. The limit of error established was 10% at probability level of 95%, using 30 plots for each method. Circumference at 1.30 m above soil level was measured, for conversion in DBH, with total time counted since the plots installation until the last tree measured. The most accurate sampling was the fixed area method, for estimation of DBH and number of trees per hectare, whereas the Bitterlich method was the most accurate for estimation of basal area and volume. Bitterlich method proved to be more efficient for estimation of all variables. It can be concluded that the accuracy is not directly associated with relative efficiency, and that less usual sampling.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-09-30
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/638
10.4336/2015.pfb.35.83.638
url https://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/638
identifier_str_mv 10.4336/2015.pfb.35.83.638
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://pfb.cnpf.embrapa.br/pfb/index.php/pfb/article/view/638/432
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Embrapa Florestas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Embrapa Florestas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira; v. 35 n. 83 (2015): jul./set.; 247-254
Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira; Vol. 35 No. 83 (2015): jul./set.; 247-254
1983-2605
1809-3647
reponame:Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)
instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
instacron:EMBRAPA
instname_str Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
instacron_str EMBRAPA
institution EMBRAPA
reponame_str Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)
collection Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv pfb@embrapa.br || revista.pfb@gmail.com || patricia.mattos@embrapa.br
_version_ 1822180024885706752
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.4336/2015.pfb.35.83.638

Registros relacionados