Consistency and equivalence in tree diameter and height instruments among inexperienced surveyors

Abstract

Primary challenges with a forest inventory program are surveyors with various levels of experience and the turnover of inexperienced surveyors. Few studies have looked at the consistency of an instrument’s results among inexperienced surveyors. Most studies have assessed whether instruments were significantly different. These tests do not indicate whether instruments were statistically equivalent, i.e., that choosing either one would be acceptable under a certain level of tolerance. This study evaluated the consistency and statistical equivalence among instruments for measuring diameter at breast height (DBH) and for total tree height (HT) among inexperienced surveyors. The study was conducted as a randomized experiment with students from an introductory tree measurement course, using four types of DBH and HT instruments, and with different tree attributes. For DBH, the results show that D-tape was the most consistent across tree attributes and teams of inexperienced surveyors and was only statistically interchangeable with Caliper with a tolerance ≥ 3 cm. For HT, Ultrasound was the most consistent but only statistically interchangeable with Laser with a tolerance ≥ 8 m. A single type of instrument for measuring DBH and for HT is recommended, especially when field crews may be a mixture of experienced and inexperienced surveyors. Our study provides initial recommendations on the choice of instruments when either purchasing new ones or replacing old ones in forest inventories.

Keywords

Biltmore stick / Bitterlich Treemeter / Clinometer / Test of equivalence / Tree measurements

References

[1] Binot JM, Pothier D, Lebel J. Comparison of relative accuracy and time requirement between the caliper, the diameter tape and an electronic tree measuring fork. For Chron, 1995, 71(2): 197-200

[2] Božić M, Čavlović J, Lukić N, Teslak K, Kos D. Efficiency of ultrasonic Vertex III hypsometer compared to the most commonly used hypsometers in Croatian forestry. Croat J for Eng, 2005, 26: 91-99

[3] Butt N, Slade E, Thompson J, Malhi Y, Riutta T. Quantifying the sampling error in tree census measurements by volunteers and its effect on carbon stock estimates. Ecol Appl, 2013, 23(4): 936-943

[4] Elzinga C, Shearer RC, Elzinga G. Observer variation in tree diameter measurements. West J Appl for, 2005, 20(2): 134-137

[5] Fassnacht FE, Mangold D, Schäfer J, Immitzer M, Kattenborn T, Koch B, Latifi H. Estimating stand density, biomass and tree species from very high resolution stereo-imagery–towards an all-in-one sensor for forestry applications?. Forestry, 2017, 90(5): 613-631

[6] Ialongo C. The logic of equivalence testing and its use in laboratory medicine. Biochem Med, 2017, 27(1): 5-13

[7] Kershaw Jr JA, Ducey MJ, Beers TW, Husch B (2016) Forest Mensuration, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK

[8] Kitahara F, Mizoue N, Yoshida S. Evaluation of data quality in Japanese national forest inventory. Environ Monit Assess, 2009, 159(1–4): 331-340

[9] Kitahara F, Mizoue N, Yoshida S. Effects of training for inexperienced surveyors on data quality of tree diameter and height measurements. Silva Fenn, 2010, 44(4): 657-667

[10] Kuehl RO (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis. 2nd edn. Duxbury/Thompson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1198/tech.2001.s589

[11] Luoma V, Saarinen N, Wulder M, White J, Vastaranta M, Holopainen M, Hyyppä J. Assessing precision in conventional field measurements of individual tree attributes. Forests, 2017, 8(2): 38

[12] Meyners M. Equivalence tests—a review. Food Qual Prefer, 2012, 26(2231-245

[13] Pollard JE, Westfall JA, Patterson PL, Gartner DL, Hansen M, Kuegler O (2006) Forest inventory and analysis national data quality assessment report for 2000 to 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA

[14] R Core Team (2024) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: MSOR Connect

[15] Robinson A (2016) equivalence: Provides tests and graphics for assessing tests of equivalence. R package version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=equivalence

[16] Robinson AP, Froese RE. Model validation using equivalence tests. Ecol Model, 2004, 176(3–4): 349-358

[17] Skovsgaard JP, Johannsen VK, Vanclay JK. Accuracy and precision of two laser dendrometers. Forestry (Lond), 1998, 71(2): 131-139

[18] Temesgen H, Hann DW, Monleon VJ. Regional height–diameter equations for major tree species of southwest Oregon. West J Appl for, 2007, 22(3): 213-219

[19] Weaver SA, Ucar Z, Bettinger P, Merry K, Faw K, Cieszewski CJ. Assessing the accuracy of tree diameter measurements collected at a distance. Croat J for Eng, 2015, 36(1): 73-84

[20] Westfall JA, Woodall CW. Measurement repeatability of a large-scale inventory of forest fuels. For Ecol Manag, 2007, 253(1–3): 171-176

[21] Wilson ER, Murray J, Ryding I, Mont CD. Comparison of three tools for measuring tree diameter in stands of different age and tree size. Q J Forest, 2007, 101: 267-274

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Northeast Forestry University