View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Draft
Updating plots to improve the precision of small-area estimates: the example of the Lorraine region, France
Journal: Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Manuscript ID cjfr-2019-0405.R2
Manuscript Type: Article
Date Submitted by the Author: 11-Mar-2020
Complete List of Authors: Fortin, Mathieu; Canadian Forest Service, Canadian Wood Fibre Centre
Keyword: hybrid inference, multiple imputation, Bayesian method, population dynamics model, growth model
Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special
Issue? :Not applicable (regular submission)
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve the precision of small-area1
estimates: the example of the Lorraine region, France2
Mathieu Fortin3
Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources4
Canada, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4, Canada, E-mail:5
mathieu.fortin@canada.ca6
March 19, 20207
1
Page 2 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Abstract8
The sampling intensity of national forest inventory is usually low. Forest dynamics9
models can be used to update plots from past inventory campaigns to enhance the10
precision of the estimate on smaller areas. By doing this, however, the inference relies11
not only on the sampling design but also on the model.12
In this study, the contribution of the model predictions to the variance of the en-13
hanced small-area estimates was assessed through a case study. The French national14
forest inventory (NFI) provided different annual campaigns for a particular region and15
department of France. Three past campaigns were updated using a forest dynamics16
model, and estimates of the standing volumes were obtained through two methods: a17
modified multiple imputation and the Bayesian method.18
The updating greatly increased the precision of the estimate and the gain was similar19
between the two methods. The sampling-related variance represented the largest share20
of the total variance in all cases. This study suggests that plot updating provides more21
precise estimates as long as (i) the forest dynamics model exhibits no systematic lack22
of fit and it was fitted to a large dataset and (ii) the sampling-related variance clearly23
outweighs the model-related variance.24
Keywords: hybrid inference; multiple imputation, forest dynamics model; growth25
model; Bayesian method26
Page 3 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
1 Introduction27
Due to the international agreements on climate change, countries now need to assess the28
state of their forests annually (McRoberts et al., 2009; Vidal et al., 2016). This need has29
induced a fundamental change in the way national forest inventories (NFI) are conducted,30
and many countries have adopted what is called a continuous forest inventory to produce31
annual estimates (McRoberts, 2001; Alderweireld et al., 2016; Hernández et al., 2016; Tomter,32
2016). Continuous forest inventories generally rely on design-based estimators and they cover33
the whole national forested area annually. This is obviously demanding in terms of resources;34
therefore the sampling intensity, i.e. the ratio between the sample size and the population35
size, remains very low. For instance, the sampling intensity in Wallonia, Belgium, is as low36
as 0.2%, but it is still one of the highest in Europe (Alderweireld et al., 2016).37
This low sampling intensity has little impact on the precision of national-level estimates38
because the sample size remains large. In estimating the forest characteristics over smaller39
areas, the sampling intensity remains roughly the same, but the sample size decreases dras-40
tically leading to imprecise regional or local estimates. This problem is included within the41
general topic of small-area estimation (Rao and Molina, 2015). One way to improve the42
precision of these regional estimates is to update the plots of past inventory campaigns using43
a forest dynamics model. Forest dynamics models include different types of models from the44
traditional stand-level models to the individual-based models (Shifley et al., 2017) and they45
are commonly referred to as growth models in forestry.46
Plot updating to improve the precision of the current estimates has interested biometri-47
cians for decades (Kangas, 1991; Bokalo et al., 1996; Shortt and Burkhart, 1996; Van Deusen,48
Page 4 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
1996, 1997; McRoberts, 2000, 2001; Xie et al., 2011). Although the approach seems very ap-49
pealing, it has a major consequence on the inferential framework. At the national level, the50
inferential framework of continuous NFI is based on the sampling design. However, when51
some plots are updated using a forest dynamics model, the inference is based on both the52
design and the model (Kangas et al., 2019). This framework is known as hybrid, a term53
coined by Fattorini (2012) and Corona et al. (2014). Other expressions such as Mandallaz’s54
(2013) pseudo-synthetic estimators also fit in this hybrid inferential framework. A notable55
characteristic of the hybrid inferential framework is that uncertainty arises not only from the56
sampling design but also from the model predictions. The model-related variance, which is57
often overlooked, is known to increase along with growth projection length (Melo et al., 2018,58
2019). The gain in precision as induced by the updated plots could be partially compensated59
for by the increasing model-related variance.60
In a more general perspective, updating plots from past inventory campaigns to enhance61
the precision of the estimates of current inventories is a special case of data assimilation62
(Lahoz et al., 2010). This approach assumes that updated past information can be merged63
with current information, which is a fundamental distinction with updated forest inventories,64
which solely rely on past information (e.g., Anttila, 2002; Haara and Leskinen, 2009). Dif-65
ferent statistical approaches, such as Bayes’ theorem and the Kalman filter (Kalman, 1960),66
have been tested for merging past and current information (e.g., Ehlers et al., 2013; Nyström67
et al., 2015). However, the estimation has never been formally addressed through a hybrid68
inferential framework and the contribution of the model to the uncertainty of the estimates69
remains to be quantified.70
The objective of this study was to estimate the gain of precision when plots of past71
Page 5 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
inventory campaigns are updated and integrated into the current inventory campaign. The72
French NFI was used as a case study. More precisely, the Meurthe-et-Moselle department73
and the Lorraine region in eastern France were selected to showcase the approach. The plots74
from three past inventory campaigns were updated and integrated into the current inventory75
under a hybrid inferential framework. The reduction of the variance as well as the model76
contribution to the variance of the estimates was assessed.77
The estimated variances obtained under the hybrid inferential framework were compared78
with those obtained with another method commonly used to merge past and current infor-79
mation, namely through the Bayesian method. In the former, the plots of past inventory80
campaigns are updated and then merged in the current inventory campaign. In the latter,81
it is assumed that updated plots and current plots provide different estimates that can be82
merged using Bayes’ theorem.83
2 Methods84
2.1 Hybrid inferential framework85
McRoberts et al. (2016) reported four key features that formally describe the context of86
hybrid inference: (i) a model that predicts the variable of interest using some auxiliary87
information, (ii) a probability sample of auxiliary information, (iii) a point estimator such as88
the mean or the total and (iv) an estimator of the variance that can account for the variances89
of the model and the probabilistic sampling design. The first two features are addressed when90
using a forest dynamics model to update the individual plots of a past inventory campaign.91
Subsequently, the third and fourth features are addressed, namely the need for point and92
Page 6 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
variance estimators that consider both the model and the design.93
Analytical point and variance estimators have been developed by some authors in the94
context of hybrid inference (e.g., Ståhl et al., 2011, 2016; Fortin et al., 2016). However,95
in many circumstances, the complexity of the model does not allow for the use of these96
analytical estimators because they rely on a Taylor series and the model derivatives cannot97
be calculated. Forest dynamics models working at the tree level (e.g., Stage, 1973; Pretzsch98
et al., 2002) are a typical example of these complex models. They are usually based on short99
growth steps so that the predictions are reinserted into the model as many times as necessary100
to obtain projections for longer time intervals. Although these models can be differentiated101
over a single growth step, the differentiation over several growth steps becomes intractable102
and, consequently, the analytical hybrid estimators cannot be applied (Fortin et al., 2018).103
Bootstrap estimators are an alternative to analytical estimators when the model or the104
way it is used are too complex to produce derivatives. Such bootstrap hybrid estimators were105
used by McRoberts and Westfall (2016) and McRoberts et al. (2016) following a multiple-106
imputation strategy as suggested by Rubin (1987). The imputation technique consists of107
imputing values for those missing in a sample using a procedure that may take the form of a108
model. In the context of plot updating, this means using a forest dynamics model to produce109
volume estimates that are substituted for unobserved current volumes in the plots of past110
inventory campaigns. Design-based point and variance estimators are then applied to the111
sample including imputed values.112
To account for the uncertainty in the imputation, the procedure can be repeated many113
times, hence the multiple-imputation denomination, with some random deviates, whose dis-114
tribution reflects the uncertainty, added to the imputation at each run. This method is, in115
Page 7 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
fact, a bootstrap and, more precisely, a parametric bootstrap (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993,116
p. 53) when the random deviates are drawn from parametric distributions to reflect the model117
residual variation, the random effects and the uncertainty in the parameter estimates. If b118
denotes the run and B the total number of runs, the multiple-imputation point and variance119
estimators are (Rubin, 1987, p. 76):120
µ =B∑b=1
µbB
(1)
V(µ) =1 + 1/B
B − 1
B∑b=1
(µb − µ)2 +B∑b=1
Vd(µb)
B(2)
where µb is the design-based estimate of the mean calculated from sample b, and Vd(µb) is121
the design-based estimate of the variance based on sample b, that is,122
Vd(µb) =
∑ni=1 (yb,i − µb)2
n(n− 1)(3)
where yb,i is the observed or imputed value in plot i of sample b. The first term on the right-123
hand side of Eq. 2 is the part of the variance that arises from the imputation procedure,124
whereas the last term represents the average designed-based variance estimate.125
This multiple-imputation technique has been used in forestry by many authors (Reams126
and McCollum, 2000; McRoberts and Westfall, 2014, 2016; Magnussen et al., 2017). However,127
some simulation studies evidenced that the variance estimator shown in Eq. 2 tends to over-128
estimate the true variance (Fay, 1992; Fortin et al., 2018). The major part of this variance129
bias comes from the model residual variation (Fortin et al., 2018). When using a model for130
Page 8 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
imputation, the relative bias in the variance estimator can be as large as 2(1−R2)/R2 where131
R2 is the coefficient of determination of the model (see Supplementary Material 3 in Fortin132
et al., 2018). In other words, a model whose R2 = 0.95 could result in a 10.5% overestimation133
of the variance in some contexts.134
Fortin et al. (2018) proposed and tested a corrected parametric bootstrap estimator based135
on multiple imputation, which can be expressed as136
V(µ) =
∑Bb=1 (µb − µ)2
B+ 2Vd(µy)−
∑Bb=1 Vd(µb)
B(4)
where137
Vd(µy) =
∑ni=1
(yi −
∑ni=1
yin
)2
n(n− 1)(5)
with yi =∑B
b=1yb,iB. Note that the variance estimated in Eq. 5 is, in fact, the design-based138
variance estimator (Eq. 3) applied to the average values yi.139
This parametric bootstrap variance estimator was supported by theoretical developments140
as well as different simulation studies, which showed that it is asymptotically unbiased (Fortin141
et al., 2018). In a more global perspective, this variance estimator is, in fact, similar in essence142
to that of Pfeffermann and Tiller (2005).143
Fortin et al. (2018) identified term Vd(µy) as an estimator of the sampling-related variance144
component. Subtracting this term from the right-hand side of Eq. 4 yields an estimator of145
the model-related variance component (Vm(µ)), namely146
Page 9 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Vm(µ) = V(µ)− Vd(µy)
=
∑Bb=1 (µb − µ)2
B+ Vd(µy)−
∑Bb=1 Vd(µb)
B(6)
Like Rubin’s multiple-imputation variance estimator (Eq. 2), this corrected variance esti-147
mator shows a logical behaviour. If a census of the population is carried out, the design-based148
variance estimates Vd(µy) and Vd(µb) are both equal to 0 and the estimate of the total vari-149
ance reduces to∑Bb=1(µb−µ)2
B, a component that arises from the model only. If the model150
predictions are perfect, then term∑Bb=1(µb−µ)2
B= 0 and Vd(µb) = Vd(µy) so that the corrected151
variance estimator reduces to a classical design-based variance estimator. For further details152
on the mathematical developments behind this estimator, see Fortin et al. (2018) and the153
supplementary data in Melo et al. (2019).154
In practice, the point and variance estimators shown in Eqs. 1 and 4 require that the155
model implement a consistent stochastic approach. More precisely, random deviates must be156
generated to account for the different stochastic components of the model. Typically, those157
are (i) the uncertainty in the parameter estimates; (ii) plot, growth step or tree random158
effects; and (iii) the residual variation in each submodel that composes the model. Moreover,159
these random deviates must follow a hierarchical structure. For each bootstrap run, the160
random deviates in the parameter estimates are drawn only once. Likewise, a plot random161
effect is drawn only once for a particular plot. The growth step random effects are drawn162
only once for all the trees of a particular plot during a given growth step. Finally, the163
deviates accounting for the residual variation are those that are drawn at each occurrence164
Page 10 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
of the submodel. Note that these deviates can also follow a covariance structure. All these165
stochastic components contribute to the model-related variances.166
The variance estimator in Eq. 4 does not require an assumption regarding the distribution167
of the point estimate; however, such a distribution is needed to define the bounds of confidence168
intervals. Under fair conditions, that is, if the model does not exhibit strong curvature as per169
Bates and Watts (1988, Ch. 7) and the sampling is random, it can reasonably be assumed170
that the central limit theorem (Casella and Berger, 2002, p. 236) still applies and that the171
point estimate follows a normal distribution.172
When updating plots from past inventories and merging them into the current inventory,173
the model only applies to the plots of past inventories so that the yb,i does not vary across the174
bootstrap runs for the plots of the current inventory. The assertion is correct if the variable175
of interest is truly observed in the plots of the current inventory. It is incorrect when dealing176
with the standing commercial volume of tree species because this variable is almost never177
truly observed. Instead, it is predicted using submodels of height–diameter relationships178
and volume, which should ideally be the same as those used in the forest dynamics model.179
Consequently, the yb,i of past plots will vary across the bootstrap runs due the submodels of180
height–diameter relationships and volume plus the other components of the forest dynamics181
model, whereas the yb,i of current plots will only be affected by the submodels of height–182
diameter relationships and volume.183
This framework is flexible enough to accommodate different contexts that go beyond data184
assimilation. For instance, if the plots of past inventories are left aside, the variance estimator185
in Eq. 4 still applies and its model-related component accounts for the uncertainty arising186
from the submodels of height–diameter relationships and volume. Only updating plots of187
Page 11 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
past inventories without combining them with any current information is still an option and188
it results in a simple updated inventory as per Anttila (2002) and Haara and Leskinen (2009).189
2.2 Bayesian method190
A Bayesian approach can be used in conjunction with a hybrid inferential framework. If191
each inventory campaign provides an estimate of the population parameter of interest, these192
estimates can be combined using Bayes’ theorem (Casella and Berger, 2002, p. 23) to obtain a193
posterior distribution of the estimate. Other approaches for combining estimates exist, such194
as the mixed estimator (see Kangas, 1991), but the Bayesian approach is more flexible in195
the sense that it does not assume that the estimates are independent and that the posterior196
distribution is normal.197
The different estimates from the individual inventory campaigns are obtained using the198
point and variance estimators shown in Eq. 1 and 4. The fundamental difference between the199
Bayesian method and the one described in the previous section is that the plots from past200
inventory campaigns are updated but not directly combined with the plots of the current201
inventory campaign. Instead, they produce an estimate of the population parameter of202
interest, and both sources of information are merged through the estimates and not through203
the plots (Fig. 1).204
(Insert Figure 1 here)205
Bayes’ theorem can be expressed under a general form as (Howson and Urbach, 2006,206
Page 12 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
p. 21)207
P(h | e) =P(e | h)P(h)
P(e)=
P(e | h)P(h)∫P(e | h)P(h)dh
(7)
where P(·) is the probability of observing the argument; e is the evidence, what we know; and208
h is the hypothesis, what we want to test, respectively. P(h | e) is the posterior distribution209
of h given the evidence e, whereas P(h) is known as the prior distribution of h.210
In the context of continuous variables, the probabilities P are replaced by probability211
density functions (f):212
f(µ | µp) =f(µp | µ)f(µ)∫f(µp | µ)f(µ)dµ
(8)
where f(µ | µp) is the posterior distribution of µ given the estimates obtained from the213
different inventory campaigns µp, f(µp | µ) is the joint density of observing the estimates µp214
if µ was the true mean and f(µ) is the prior of µ, that is, the density without any knowledge215
of the inventory campaigns. Note that the notation in Eq. 8 follows the vector notation in216
McCulloch et al. (2008, p. 23).217
The knowledge about the prior distribution of µ is limited: the mean standing volume is218
necessarily positive and likely smaller than a particular limit which could be set to 400 m3ha−1219
according to field experience. This limited information leads to the use of a noninformative220
prior (see Box and Tiao, 1973, p. 27), so that f(µ) = c for any µ within the range ]0, 400] or221
0 otherwise.222
The expression of Bayes’ theorem shown in Eq. 8 might seem unusual to some biometri-223
Page 13 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
cians who prefer a sequential approach (see Box and Tiao, 1973, p. 11) so that224
f(µ | µp,2, µp,1) =f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µ|µp,1)∫f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µ|µp,1)dµ
(9)
where µp,1 and µp,2 are the estimates from a first and a second inventory campaign. The225
function f(µ|µp,1) is, in fact, the posterior of µ given the estimate from a first inventory226
campaign µp,1, which serves as prior to the posterior f(µ|µp,1, µp,2). This sequential approach227
can be repeated each time new information is made available.228
Using the general product rule (Korn and Korn, 2000, p. 589), it can be shown that229
the expression in Eq. 8 and the sequential approach are, in fact, equivalent (see Appendix).230
However, in this study, the first was preferred over the latter because it is more tractable231
when the estimates from the different inventory campaigns are correlated. The sequential232
approach can also accommodate these correlations but at the cost of additional developments.233
The density f(µp | µ) is expected to follow a multivariate normal distribution with234
variances estimated using the variance estimator shown in Eq. 4. However, the estimates235
are not entirely independent since they rely on the same model. It can be assumed that the236
covariance between the estimates is equal to237
∀k 6= k′, COV(µp,k, µp,k′) =
√Vm(µp,k)Vm(µp,k′) (10)
where k is the inventory campaign index, so that k = 1, 2, . . . , K and Vm(µp,k) is the estimated238
model-related variance of the estimate of the kth inventory campaign (Eq. 6). Note that239
Vm(µp,k) is only the estimated model-related variance and it is necessarily smaller than the240
estimated variance shown in Eq. 4.241
Page 14 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Under the assumption of a multivariate normal distribution, the joint density becomes242
f(µp | µ) =e−(µp−µ)
T Ω−1
(µp−µ)2√
(2π)K | Ω |(11)
where Ω is the estimated variance-covariance matrix of µp whose diagonal elements are the243
estimated hybrid variances (Eq. 4), and off-diagonal elements are the covariances based on244
the estimated model-related variances (Eq. 10), | Ω | is the determinant of the same matrix245
and K is the number of inventory campaigns or, equivalently, the length of vector µp.246
2.3 Case study: Stands of oak, beech and hornbeam in eastern247
France248
Sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.), European beech249
(Fagus sylvatica L.) and European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) are four emblematic250
species of northern France. They often grow in mixed stands and together account for more251
than a third of the total standing commercial volume in metropolitan France (IGN, 2014).252
In 2010, the nationwide harvest of these four species was estimated at 12.4 million m3, which253
represented more than 60% of the total harvest of broadleaved species (AGRESTE, 2012).254
The French NFI is a continuous inventory based on an annual two-phase sampling scheme255
(Mandallaz, 2008, p. 79), also known as double sampling (Gregoire and Valentine, 2008,256
p. 149). The first phase follows a systematic grid design that covers the whole metropolitan257
territory. The main grid has a sampling intensity of one node every 1 km2. One tenth of258
the nodes is systematically selected and successively sampled every year. This results in an259
annual systematic design with a lower sampling intensity of one node every 10 km2. The260
Page 15 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
successive annual grids are meant to overlap and to keep a systematic grid design after a261
five-year cycle. This system is described by some authors as one of interpenetrating panels262
(e.g., McRoberts, 2001). Every year, the land use at each node of the annual grid is observed263
using aerial photographs. During the second phase, a subsample of the nodes that fall into264
forested areas is randomly selected for ground measurements. A field plot is established265
at each node of this subsample. Each plot is composed of four concentric circular areas in266
which different tree- or plot-level attributes are recorded. A vegetation survey is also carried267
out following the Braun-Blanquet method (Wikum and Shanholtzer, 1978). The inventory268
protocol is described in IGN (2016).269
We focused on the Lorraine region where the oak–beech–hornbeam forest type is common.270
French administrative regions are divided into departments. To illustrate the effect of the271
area, we also selected the Meurthe-et-Moselle department of the Lorraine region to be part of272
the case study. The 2015 inventory campaign was chosen as the one for which an estimate of273
the standing commercial volume was needed. Three past inventory campaigns were selected274
for the plot updating. The inventory campaigns of 2005 and 2010 were left aside because275
the annual systematic grids followed a five-year cycle and the updated plots would have been276
very close to those of 2015. By selecting the inventory campaigns of 2006, 2009 and 2012,277
the set-up of the case study was less subject to spatial correlations.278
The plots that fell into the oak–beech–hornbeam forest type within the Meurthe-et-279
Moselle department and the Lorraine region were identified using the vegetation survey. The280
plots were kept only if the cover of oak, beech or hornbeam was at least 25% and the cover281
of coniferous species did not exceed 5%. It was assumed that these two criteria were enough282
to define the forest type and that the area covered by this forest type remained constant283
Page 16 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
from 2006 to 2015 in both the department and the region. Approximately 60% and 50% of284
the plots met these criteria at the department and the region levels, respectively. Given that285
the forested areas of the department and the region were estimated at 1600 and 8820 km2286
(IGN, 2014), respectively, the area occupied by the oak–beech–hornbeam forest type could287
be roughly estimated at 960 km2 in the Meurthe-et-Moselle department and at 4410 km2 in288
the whole Lorraine region. Table 1 provides a summary of the dataset. Fig. 2 shows the289
location of the plots. Note that most of the southeastern part of the region showed no plot290
of the oak–beech–hornbeam forest type. This is, in fact, the Vosges mountain range where291
coniferous stands dominate the landscape.292
(Insert Table 1 here)293
(Insert Figure 2 here)294
MATHILDE is a forest dynamics model that makes it possible to forecast the development295
of sample plots located in stands of oak, beech and hornbeam (Fortin and Manso, 2016).296
The model applies at the tree level and its structure is shown in Fig. 3. It consists of297
several submodels that respectively predict the individual mortality, the diameter increment298
of survivors (Manso et al., 2015a,b) and the recruitment of new trees. The mortality submodel299
includes dummy variables that account for the occurrence of droughts and windstorms so that300
the model can take into account the effect of these disturbances (Manso et al., 2015b).301
(Insert Figure 3 here)302
Since its construction in 2015, the model has been complemented by a plot- and a tree-303
level harvest occurrence submodel (Manso et al., 2018; Fortin et al., 2019a), a submodel304
Page 17 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
of height–diameter relationships (Fortin et al., 2019b) and a submodel of commercial vol-305
ume (unpublished). In addition to traditional forest metrics, the model takes into account306
stumpage prices in the prediction of harvest occurrence as well as the mean temperature and307
precipitation of the growing season in the prediction of tree height and diameter increment.308
The model was designed to work in a full stochastic fashion using the Monte Carlo tech-309
nique. Random deviates are drawn to account for the uncertainty in the parameter estimates;310
the plot, growth step and tree random effects; and the residual variation of each submodel311
that composes the model. Some submodels have a binary outcome such as the harvest oc-312
currence submodels and the mortality submodel. The random deviate that accounts for the313
residual variation is then drawn from a uniform distribution [0,1]. The event is assumed to314
occur when the deviate is smaller than the predicted probability of occurrence.315
In its stochastic mode, MATHILDE follows the hierarchical structure mentioned in Sec-316
tion 2.1. It produces growth realizations of each sample plot. The usual growth step is five317
years, but the model allows for growth steps ranging from three to six years. Given that the318
selected inventory campaigns were three years apart, the growth step was set to three years.319
Longer growth projections were obtained by reinserting the predictions into the model as320
often as needed. The deviates were simulated following the hierarchical structure and they321
propagated through the successive growth steps.322
The point and variance estimators shown in Eqs. 1 and 4 were used in conjunction with323
MATHILDE to update the plots from the 2006, 2009 and 2012 inventory campaigns to 2015.324
The stumpage prices and the mean temperature and precipitation of the growing season were325
set to those observed from 2006 to 2015. A major windstorm occurred in 2009 and it was326
accounted for in the 2006–2009 growth step when updating the plots of the 2006 campaign.327
Page 18 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Two different sets of simulations were conducted. In the first set, the inventory campaigns328
of 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 were successively used to produce a single estimate of the 2015329
standing volume. For the 2015 campaign, this was, in fact, the traditional method. For the330
inventory campaigns of 2006, 2009 and 2012, the approach was one of updated inventory331
(UI) as per Anttila (2002) where the past information is simply updated but not merged332
with that of the current inventory.333
Data assimilation (DA) was performed in the second set of simulations. The information334
of past inventory campaigns was updated and combined with current information under a335
hybrid inferential framework. The resulting estimates were then compared to those obtained336
using the Bayesian method. Note that the estimates of the first set of simulations, that is, the337
estimates from each inventory campaign, were those used in the Bayesian method (Fig. 1).338
3 Results and discussion339
The estimates of the mean standing volume per hectare were similar across the different340
inventory campaigns and the methods (Table 2). They ranged from 191 to 206 m3ha−1 and341
from 200 to 215 m3ha−1 at the department and the region levels, respectively. The estimated342
variances obtained from the individual inventory campaigns were of similar magnitude. Re-343
gardless of the method and the level, updating plots from past inventories and combining the344
information with that of the current inventory contributed to decrease the variance of the345
estimates. The estimated variance was roughly inversely proportional to the sample size for346
both methods. This trend is shown for the hybrid inferential framework in Figure 4. For in-347
stance, compared to the 2015 inventory campaign, the estimates based on the 2009 and 2015348
Page 19 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
campaigns had approximately twice the number of plots, but their estimated variances were349
half those of 2015 at both the department and the region levels (Fig. 4). The estimates based350
on all the available campaigns relied on a sample size four times larger and their estimated351
variances were approximately one fourth those of 2015. The smaller estimated variances352
resulted in narrower confidence intervals which were again very similar between the methods353
(Table 2).354
(Insert Table 2 here)355
(Insert Figure 4 here)356
The contribution of the sampling and the model to the total variance is shown in Table 3.357
At both the department and the region levels, the sampling represented the largest share.358
Except for the 2006 inventory campaign, the estimated model-related variances remained359
relatively small, ranging from 0.6 to 8.8 m6ha−2 and from 0.5 to 8.3 m6ha−2 at the department360
and the region levels, respectively. In proportion, the model-related variance represented361
between 0.2 and 1.9% of the total variance at the department level when the 2006 inventory362
campaign was not included in the estimation. Whenever this was the case, the model-related363
variance accounted for 4.2–8.5% of the total variance.364
At the region level, the model had a greater relative contribution to the total variance365
mainly due to fact that the sampling-related variance was smaller. Without the 2006 in-366
ventory campaign, the model-related variances ranged from 0.5 to 9.9%. When the 2006367
inventory campaign was included in the estimation process, the model-related variances ac-368
counted for 14.9–25.6% of the total variance.369
Page 20 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
(Insert Table 3 here)370
The results of this study show that updated inventories, that is, using only information371
from past inventories, can lead to estimates with a precision comparable to that of the372
current inventory (Table 2). Similar results were also reported by Anttila (2002). Combining373
updated past inventories with current inventory information leads to more precise estimates374
of the standing volume. This result is consistent with those of past studies (Kangas, 1991;375
Bokalo et al., 1996; McRoberts and Lessard, 1999; Ehlers et al., 2013). In fact, the updated376
plots increase the sample size and therefore, they contribute to decrease the sampling-related377
variance (Table 3). Because the model-related variance was much smaller than that induced378
by the sampling, the total variance was approximately inversely proportional to the sample379
size, as it would have been with a pure design-based variance estimator, that is, V(µ) = σ2/n.380
Fortin et al. (2016) showed that the model-related variance mainly stems from the vari-381
ances of the parameter estimates and not so much from the residual variation. A decisive382
factor that can explain the small model-related variance in this case study is the size of the383
datasets to which the different components of MATHILDE were fitted. For all components,384
the fit was based on thousands of observations and, consequently, the estimated variances of385
the parameter estimates were rather small. The context of the case study, namely a large386
sampling-related variance coupled with a small model-related variance, matches the condi-387
tions in which the largest gain in precision can be expected according to Ehlers et al. (2013).388
If the sampling-related variance had been smaller, there would have been less improvement.389
This would be the case if the sample size of the current inventory were much greater than it390
was in the case study. For instance, if the population had been the stands of oak, beech and391
Page 21 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
hornbeam all over the metropolitan territory, the 2015 inventory campaign would have had392
a sample size of 2150 plots. This would have led to a smaller sampling-related variance and,393
consequently, the model-related variance would have been proportionally more important. In394
such a context, adding plots updated from past inventory campaigns would necessarily have395
a smaller impact on the total variance of the estimate.396
Both the sampling- and the model-related variances of large-area estimates are known397
to be affected by the projection length: the sampling-related variance tends to decrease398
asymptotically, whereas the model-related variance increases along with the projection length399
(Melo et al., 2018). Even when the model-related variance is initially small, it can account for400
a greater part of the variance than the sampling especially when natural disturbances come401
into play (e.g., Melo et al., 2019). As per our hypothesis, it was expected that the model-402
related variance would increase with the projection length, and the gain in precision induced403
by the greater sample size would be partially compensated for. This was not the case in404
any of our combinations of campaigns regardless of the level. In fact, the longest projection405
occurred for the 2006 campaign, and the nine-year period separating that campaign from406
2015 represents a short-term projection compared to those of Melo et al. (2018). This short-407
term projection can partly explain why the model-related variance remained relatively small408
compared to the variance induced by the sampling.409
Contrastingly, Melo et al. (2019) found that the model-related variance could sharply410
increase and largely exceed the sampling-related variance in short-term projections when411
natural disturbances were taken into account. There is a fundamental difference between412
the context of this study and that of Melo et al. (2019). In plot updating, the occurrence of413
large-scale natural disturbances is known. When making large-area projections as in Melo414
Page 22 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
et al. (2019), the occurrence of large-scale disturbances is unknown and it must be predicted.415
In other words, in the context of large-area projections, both the occurrence and the effects416
of the disturbances contribute to the model-related variance, whereas only the effects of the417
disturbances are accounted for in plot updating. This fundamental difference can also explain418
why the model-related variance remained small.419
The inability of many forest dynamics models to take into account disturbances definitely420
limits their use in plot updating. This applies not only to large-scale natural disturbances421
but also to harvesting (Haara and Leskinen, 2009; Ehlers et al., 2013). Some authors have422
suggested that harvested plots should be dealt with through a stratification before using the423
forest dynamics model (Van Deusen, 1996; Magnussen et al., 2017). However, it is not always424
known whether a particular plot has been harvested or not over the interval, and delineating425
such harvested areas on the map is subject to errors. Even if this information is available, it426
may happen that more than one disturbance occurred during the time interval, which could427
lead to a more complex stratification and the sample size issues that come with it.428
An alternative consists of integrating the harvesting into the model as suggested by429
Condés and McRoberts (2017). In MATHILDE, the harvesting is considered through a430
harvest occurrence submodel, which was much simpler than retrieving the plot statuses from431
GIS layers, assuming they would have been available. Because its mortality submodel also432
considers the effects of windstorms and droughts (Manso et al., 2015b), MATHILDE was433
adapted to the contexts of the different inventory campaigns. The integration of natural434
and human-made disturbances into forest dynamics models is crucial in forest management435
(Seidl et al., 2011). It can also facilitate data assimilation procedures by avoiding a complex436
stratification. There is no certainty that this results in more precise estimates though. The437
Page 23 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
comparison with a simple stratification whenever the data and the context make it possible438
remains to be investigated.439
The hybrid inferential framework yielded results that were very similar to those of the440
Bayesian method. Even though both methods require distributional assumptions, the Bayesian441
method is more demanding. The bootstrap hybrid variance estimator shown in Eq. 4 requires442
distributional assumptions for the stochastic components of the model. However, there is no443
need to assume a distribution for the estimates unless confidence limits are required. This is444
a fundamental difference with the Bayesian method where the distributions of the estimates445
are required to compute the posterior distribution.446
Another difference between the methods is that the hybrid inferential framework can easily447
be extended to the multivariate case. In fact, forest dynamics models that apply at the tree448
level can predict many variables of interest for each individual plot. This represents a major449
advantage over stand-level models and remote sensing information. In such a context, the450
yb,i, µ, µb, and µy in the estimators shown in Eqs. 1 and 4 all become vectors. The variance451
estimator produces an estimated variance-covariance matrix for the vector µ. Typically,452
the vector µ would contain some estimated species-specific volumes, basal areas and stem453
densities.454
The extension to the multivariate case with the Bayesian method is more complex. As455
shown in Eq. 11, the single estimates of the different inventory campaigns are assumed to456
be correlated. In the multivariate context, there could be correlations between the different457
variables of interests and between the different campaigns. For instance, the estimated basal458
area of the 2006 campaign could be correlated to the volume of the 2012 campaign, because459
these variables were predicted using the same model. This results in a variance-covariance460
Page 24 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
matrix of much larger dimensions than in the hybrid inferential framework. This remains to461
be investigated.462
Both methods rely on the assumption that the model exhibits no systematic lack of fit.463
This is a strong assumption. In practice, all models show a certain lack of fit. Differences464
between the context of the data used to fit the components of the model and that of the465
inventory campaigns will likely induce a lack of fit. These differences can be related to the466
sampling design, the inventory protocol or the time period. In MATHILDE, the submodels467
of harvest occurrence, recruitment and height–diameter relationships are not too much of a468
concern since they were all fitted to data that were collected in the context of the French469
NFI. However, the submodels of mortality, diameter increment and volume were fitted to data470
collected in other contexts, with larger plots and measurements carried out several decades471
ago in some cases (see Manso et al., 2015a,b). This potential lack of fit could not be assessed472
here because the plots of the different inventory campaigns were not remeasured over time.473
The variance estimator shown in Eq. 4 only addresses the precision of the point estimator.474
The mean square error (MSE) measures the quality of an estimator and it accounts for both475
the precision and the accuracy through the variance and the bias (Casella and Berger, 2002,476
p. 330). It is calculated as the average squared difference between the estimates and the true477
value: MSE = (B(µ))2 + V(µ), where B(µ) is the bias of the point estimator. Any lack of478
fit in the model can result in a bias in the point estimator. This bias induces an increase of479
the MSE or equivalently, a decrease in the quality of the point estimator. As pointed out by480
Gregoire (1998), the model-based inferential framework has been criticized for the fact that481
model misspecification can result in serious biases. The same criticism applies to the hybrid482
inferential framework.483
Page 25 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
In this case study, the estimates with the updated inventory approach were close to the484
estimate of the current inventory (Table 2). This suggested that there was no major lack of485
fit. In fact, major differences between the estimate of the current inventory campaign and486
those based on the updated inventory approach should be considered as a potential indicator487
that the model is not performing well in the context. A sensitivity analysis could also bring488
new insight into the impact of potential lacks of fit on the MSE of the point estimator.489
Another assumption is related to the variance estimator shown in Eq. 4. It assumes that490
the Monte Carlo technique provides a reliable estimate of the variance. There is no certainty491
that this is really the case, especially if some correlations were overlooked during the fitting492
of the model. Fortin et al. (2009) tested the estimated variances through the comparison493
of the nominal and empirical coverage of confidence intervals. The same test applied to494
MATHILDE showed that the variances were slightly underestimated. As a consequence, all495
the variances shown in Table 2 might be slightly underestimated as well.496
Some other estimators are less restrictive that those of the hybrid inferential framework.497
Model-assisted estimators do not make any assumption regarding the correctness of the model498
(Mandallaz, 2008, p. 109). Fischer and Saborowski (2019) developed a model-assisted esti-499
mator in the context of a continuous forest inventory based on a stratified sampling scheme500
(Gregoire and Valentine, 2008, p. 135). This was only possible because some plots of past501
campaigns had been remeasured in the current inventory campaign. When these remea-502
surements are available, it is definitely recommended to use these model-assisted estimators503
because they relax the assumption of model correctness. When the plots are not remea-504
sured over time, as in the French NFI, model-assisted estimators cannot be used and the two505
methods tested in this study remain viable options.506
Page 26 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
A common method in data assimilation is the Kalman (1960) filter and its extended507
version (Grewal and Andrews, 2001, p. 181). Ehlers et al. (2013) and Nyström et al. (2015)508
provided examples of data assimilation based on the extended Kalman filter which could not509
be applied in this case study because it requires the model to be differentiable. Tree-level510
models such as MATHILDE are complex and can hardly be differentiated. The bootstrap511
variance hybrid estimator used in this case study was developed in the context of complex512
models (Fortin et al., 2018). Based on bootstrap methods, it does not require any derivatives.513
However, a full stochastic implementation of the model is needed.514
4 Conclusions515
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study:516
1. A forest dynamics model can be used to update the plots of past inventory campaigns517
in order to increase the precision of the estimate in the current inventory campaign.518
2. Bootstrap hybrid estimators based on multiple imputation yield estimates that are519
similar to those obtained with the Bayesian method.520
3. Given that forest dynamics models are usually fitted to large datasets and that the521
design-based variance of forest inventories is generally large for small areas, the updating522
of past inventories provides a major gain in precision.523
4. In this case study, updating information from an inventory campaign that took place524
nine years earlier still largely improved the precision of the estimate of the standing525
Page 27 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
commercial volume, and the variance related to the model remained a minor component526
of the total variance.527
5. Both the hybrid inferential framework and the Bayesian method assume that the model528
exhibits no systematic lack of fit, which is a strong assumption inherent to model-based529
estimators (Gregoire, 1998). Any systematic lack of fit can affect the quality of the point530
estimator.531
Acknowledgements532
The author wishes to thank Steen Magnussen (Canadian Forest Service), Ronald E. McRoberts533
(University of Minnesota and U.S.D.A. Forest Service), two anonymous reviewers and the534
Associate Editor for their comments on a preliminary version of this paper and Paula535
Irving (Canadian Forest Service) for her editing. The French NFI database is available536
from the website of the Institut national de l’information géographique et forestière (http:537
//www.ign.fr/). Some GIS layers that were used to produce Fig. 2 were downloaded from the538
GeoBoundaries dataset (www.wm.edu/as/data-science/researchlabs/geolab/get_data/539
geoboundaries), the European Environment Agency website (www.eea.europa.eu) and the540
Natural Earth website (www.naturalearthdata.com).541
References542
AGRESTE (2012). Forests and the wood-processing sector. Technical report, Ministère de543
l’Agriculture et de l’Agroalimentaire.544
Page 28 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Alderweireld, M., Rondeux, J., Latte, N., Hébert, J., and Lecomte, H. (2016). National Forest545
Inventories: Assessment of Wood Availability and Use, chapter Belgium (Wallonia), pages546
73–87. Springer.547
Anttila, P. (2002). Updating stand level inventory data applying growth models and visual548
interpretation of aerial photographs. Silva Fennica, 36(2):549–560.549
Bates, D. M. and Watts, D. G. (1988). Nonlinear Regression Analysis and its Applications.550
John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Canada.551
Bokalo, M., Titus, S. J., andWiens, D. P. (1996). Sampling with partial replacement extended552
to include growth projections. Forest Science, 42(3):328–334.553
Box, G. E. P. and Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Addison-554
Wesley Publishing Company, London, UK.555
Casella, G. and Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference. Second Edition. Duxbury.556
Condés, S. and McRoberts, R. E. (2017). Updating national forest inventory estimates of557
growing stock volume using hybrid inference. Forest Ecology and Management, 400:48–57.558
Corona, P., Fattorini, L., Franceschini, S., Scrinzi, G., and Torresan, C. (2014). Estimation559
of standing wood volume in forest compartments by exploiting airborne laser scanning560
information: model-based, design-based, and hybrid perspectives. Canadian Journal of561
Forest Research, 44:1303–1311.562
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and563
Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.564
Page 29 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Ehlers, S., Grafström, A., Nyström, K., Olsson, H., and Ståhl, G. (2013). Data assimilation565
in stand-level forest inventories. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 43:1104–1113.566
Fattorini, L. (2012). Studies in Honor of Claudio Scala, chapter Design-based or model-567
based inference? The role of hybrid approaches in environmental surveys, pages 173–214.568
Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena.569
Fay, R. E. (1992). When are inferences from multiple imputation valid? In Proceeding of570
the Survey Research Methods Section, pages 227–232, Alexandria, Va. American Statistical571
Association.572
Fischer, C. and Saborowski, J. (2019). Estimating volume growth from successive double573
sampling for stratification. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49:1052–1059.574
Fortin, M., Bédard, S., DeBlois, J., and Meunier, S. (2009). Assessing and testing prediction575
uncertainty for single tree-based models: A case study applied to northern hardwood stands576
in southern Québec, Canada. Ecological Modelling, 220:2770–2781.577
Fortin, M. and Manso, R. (2016). Le simulateur MATHILDE dans CAPSIS. Available online578
at http://capsis.cirad.fr/capsis/_media/mathildeuserguidefr.pdf.579
Fortin, M., Manso, R., and Calama, R. (2016). Hybrid estimation based on mixed-effects580
models in forest inventories. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46:1310–1319.581
Fortin, M., Manso, R., and Schneider, R. (2018). Parametric bootstrap estimators for hybrid582
inference in forest inventories. Forestry, 91:354–365.583
Fortin, M., Pichancourt, J.-B., Climaco de Melo, L., Colin, A., and Caurla, S. (2019a). The584
Page 30 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
effect of stumpage prices on large-area forest growth forecasts based on socio-ecological585
models. Forestry, 92:339–356.586
Fortin, M., Van Couwenberghe, R., Perez, V., and Piedallu, C. (2019b). Evidence of climate587
effects on the height-diameter relationships of tree species. Annals of Forest Science, 76:1.588
Gregoire, T. G. (1998). Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: appre-589
ciating the difference. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28:1429–1447.590
Gregoire, T. G. and Valentine, H. T. (2008). Sampling strategies for natural resources and591
the environment. Chapman & Hall/CRC.592
Grewal, M. S. and Andrews, A. P. (2001). Kalman filtering: theory and practice using593
MATLAB, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.594
Haara, A. and Leskinen, P. (2009). The assessment of the uncertainty of updated stand-level595
inventory data. Silva Fennica, 43(1):87–112.596
Hernández, L., Alberdi, I., McRoberts, R. E., Morales-Hildago, D., Redmond, J., and Vidal,597
C. (2016). National Forest Inventories: Assessment of wood availability and use, chapter598
Wood resources assessment beyond Europe, pages 105–118. Springer.599
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach. Third600
Edition. Carus Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, USA.601
IGN (2014). Le Mémento Edition 2014. Inventaire forestier. Technical report, Institut na-602
tional de l’information géographique et forestière (IGN).603
Page 31 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
IGN (2016). Résultats d’inventaire forestier. Méthodologie. Pour bien comprendre les résul-604
tats publiés. 2011-2015. Technical report, Institut national de l’information géographique605
et forestière (IGN).606
Kalman, R. E. (1960). A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal607
of Basic Engineering, 82(1):35–45.608
Kangas, A. (1991). Updated measurement data as prior information in forest inventory. Silva609
Fennica, 25(3):181–191.610
Kangas, A., Räty, M., Korhonen, K. T., Vauhkonen, J., and Packalen, T. (2019). Catering611
information needs from global to local scales – Potential and challenges with national forest612
inventories. Forests, 10:800.613
Korn, G. A. and Korn, T. M. (2000). Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers.614
Dove Publications, Mineola, New York, USA.615
Lahoz, W., Khattatov, B., and Ménard, R., editors (2010). Data assimilation. Making Sense616
of Observations. Springer.617
Magnussen, S., Stinson, G., and Boudewyn, P. (2017). Updating Canada’s national forest618
inventory with multiple imputations of missing contemporary data. The Forestry Chronicle,619
93:213–225.620
Mandallaz, D. (2008). Sampling techniques for forest inventories. Chapman & Hall/CRC.621
Mandallaz, D. (2013). A three-phase sampling extension of the generalized regression estima-622
Page 32 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
tor with partially exhaustive information. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 43:383–623
388.624
Manso, R., Morneau, F., Ningre, F., and Fortin, M. (2015a). Effect of climate and intra-625
and inter-specific competition on diameter increment in beech and oak stands. Forestry,626
88:540–551.627
Manso, R., Morneau, F., Ningre, F., and Fortin, M. (2015b). Incorporating stochasticity628
from extreme climatic events and multi-species competition relationships into single-tree629
mortality models. Forest Ecology and Management, 354:243–253.630
Manso, R., Ningre, F., and Fortin, M. (2018). Simultaneous prediction of plot-level and tree-631
level harvest occurrences with correlated random effects. Forest Science, 64(5):461–470.632
McCulloch, C., Searle, S., and Neuhaus, J. M. (2008). Generalized, linear, and mixed models.633
John Wiley & Sons, New York.634
McRoberts, R. E. (2000). Evaluating imputation and modeling in the North Central region.635
In McRoberts, R. E., Reams, G. A., and Van Deusen, P. C., editors, Proceedings of the First636
Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium, pages 43–48. USDA Forest Service.637
McRoberts, R. E. (2001). Imputation and model-based updating techniques for annual forest638
inventories. Forest Science, 47(3):322–330.639
McRoberts, R. E., Chen, Q., Domke, G. M., Ståhl, G., Saarela, S., and Westfall, J. A.640
(2016). Hybrid estimators for mean aboveground carbon per unit area. Forest Ecology and641
Management, 378:44–56.642
Page 33 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
McRoberts, R. E. and Lessard, V. C. (1999). Estimating uncertainty in annual forest in-643
ventory estimates. In Proceedings of the section on statistics and the environment, pages644
19–24. American Statistical Association.645
McRoberts, R. E., Tomppo, E., Schadauer, K., Vidal, C., Ståhl, G., Chirici, G., Lanz, A.,646
Cienciala, E., Winter, S., and Smith, W. B. (2009). Harmonizing national forest inventories.647
Journal of Forestry, June:179–187.648
McRoberts, R. E. and Westfall, J. A. (2014). Effects of uncertainty in model predictions of649
invidual tree volume on large area volume estimates. Forest Science, 60:34–42.650
McRoberts, R. E. and Westfall, J. A. (2016). Propagating uncertainty through individual651
tree volume model predictions to large-area volume estimates. Annals of Forest Science,652
73:625–633.653
Melo, L. C., Schneider, R., and Fortin, M. (2018). Estimating model- and sampling-related654
uncertainty in large-area growth predictions. Ecological Modelling, 390:62–69.655
Melo, L. C., Schneider, R., and Fortin, M. (2019). The effect of natural and anthropogenic656
disturbances on the uncertainty of large-area forest growth forecasts. Forestry, 92:231–241.657
Nyström, M., Lindgren, N., Wallerman, J., Grafström, A., Muszta, A., Nyström, K., Bohlin,658
J., Willén, E., Fransson, J. E. S., Ehlers, S., Olsson, H., and Ståhl, G. (2015). Data659
assimilation in forest inventory: first empirical results. Forests, 6:4540–4557.660
Pfeffermann, D. and Tiller, R. B. (2005). Bootstrap approximation to prediction MSE for661
state-space models with estimated parameters. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 26:893–662
916.663
Page 34 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., and Ďurský (2002). The single tree-based stand simulator SILVA:664
construction, application and evaluation. Forest Ecology and Management, 162:3–21.665
Rao, J. N. K. and Molina, I. (2015). Small area estimation. John Wiley & Sons.666
Reams, G. A. and McCollum, J. M. (2000). The use of multiple imputation in the southern667
annual forest inventory system. In Integrated tools for natural resources inventory in the668
21st century, USDA General Technical Report NC-212, pages 228–233.669
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation in non-response surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.670
Seidl, R., Fernandes, P. M., Fonseca, T. F., Gillet, F., Jönsson, A. M., Merganičová, K.,671
Netherer, S., Arpaci, A., Bontemps, J.-D., Bugmann, H., González-Olabarria, J. R., Lasch,672
P., Meredieu, C., F., M., Schelhaas, M.-J., and Mohren, F. (2011). Modelling natural673
disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review. Ecological Modelling, 222:903–924.674
Shifley, S. R., He, H. S., Lischke, H., Wang, W. J., Jin, W., Gustafson, E. J., Thompson,675
J. R., Thompson III, F. R., Dijak, W. D., and Yang, J. (2017). The past and future676
of modeling forest dynamics: from growth and yield curves to forest landscape models.677
Landscape Ecology, 32:1307–1325.678
Shortt, J. S. and Burkhart, H. E. (1996). A comparison of loblolly pine plantation growth and679
yield models for inventory updating. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 20(1):15–22.680
Stage, A. R. (1973). Prognosis model for stand development. Research Paper INT 137,681
USDA Forest Service.682
Ståhl, G., Holm, S., Gregoire, T. G., Gobakken, T., Næsset, E., and Nelson, R. (2011).683
Page 35 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Model-based inference for biomass estimation in a LiDAR sample survey in Hedmark684
County, Norway. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41:96–107.685
Ståhl, G., Saarela, S., Schnell, S., Holm, S., Breidenbach, J., Healey, S. P., Patterson, P. L.,686
Magnussen, S., Næsset, E., McRoberts, R. E., and Gregoire, T. G. (2016). Use of models in687
large-area forest surveys: comparing model-assisted, model-based and hybrid estimation.688
Forest Ecosystems, 3:5.689
Tomter, S. M. (2016). National Forest Inventories: Assessment of wood availability and use,690
chapter Norway, pages 601–619. Springer.691
Van Deusen, P. C. (1996). Incorporating predictions into an annual forest inventory. Canadian692
Journal of Forest Research, 26:1709–1713.693
Van Deusen, P. C. (1997). Annual forest inventory statistical concepts with emphasis on694
multiple imputation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27:379–384.695
Vidal, C., Alberdi, I., Redmond, J., Vestman, M., Lanz, A., and Schadauer, K. (2016). The696
role of European national forest inventories for international forestry reporting. Annals of697
Forest Science, 73:793–806.698
Wikum, D. A. and Shanholtzer, G. F. (1978). Application of the Braun-Blanquet cover-699
abundance scale for vegetation analysis in land development studies. Environmental Man-700
agement, 2:323–329.701
Xie, X., Wang, Q., Dai, L., Su, D., Wang, X., Qi, G., and Ye, Y. (2011). Application702
of China’s national forest continuous inventory database. Environmental Management,703
48:1095–1106.704
Page 36 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Appendix705
Let us consider Bayes’ theorem as expressed in Eq. 8 and set the number of inventory cam-706
paigns to two so that vector µp = (µp,1, µp,2)T . Using the general product rule (Korn and707
Korn, 2000, p. 589), the equation can be developped as follows708
f(µ | µp) =f(µp | µ)f(µ)∫f(µp | µ)f(µ)dµ
=f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µp,1 | µ)f(µ)∫f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µp,1 | µ)f(µ)dµ
=f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µp,1|µ)f(µ)
f(µp,1)∫f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µp,1|µ)f(µ)
f(µp,1)dµ
=f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µ | µp,1)∫f(µp,2 | µp,1, µ)f(µ | µp,1)dµ
which yields the sequential approach shown in Eq. 9. This development can easily be709
extended to a greater number of inventory campaigns. A similar development can also be710
found in Howson and Urbach (2006, p. 253).711
Page 37 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Tables712
Table 1: Summary of the inventory campaigns of 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the Meurthe-et-Moselle department and the Lorraine region, France. n is the number of plots.
Level and campaign n Minimum Median Mean MaximumMeurthe-et-Moselle department2006 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 51 0 375 512 2476Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 20.8 20.1 43.32009 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 35 0 422 569 2299Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 17.7 19.6 46.22012 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 55 0 464 531 1837Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 20.0 20.2 46.72015 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 46 42 463 605 1680Basal area (m2ha−1) 1.9 21.1 21.4 63.4
Lorraine region2006 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 203 0 479 634 2476Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 22.0 21.8 60.72009 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 170 0 497 688 2692Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 23.1 22.2 56.42012 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 240 0 442 614 2564Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 21.1 21.3 54.12015 campaignStem density (trees ha−1) 180 0 519 666 2564Basal area (m2ha−1) 0 22.2 21.9 63.4
Page 38 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating
plotsto
improve
small-area
estimates
Table 2: Estimates of the 2015 mean standing volume per hectare in mixed stands of oak, beech and hornbeam in the Meurthe-et-Moselle department and the Lorraine region, France, in function of the different methods and inventory campaigns. Confidenceintervals are based on a 0.95 probability.
Hybrid inferential framework Hybrid framework + Bayesian methodLevel and Approacha nb
Estimate of Confidence Estimated Estimate of Confidence Estimatedcampaigns the mean interval variance the mean interval varianceMeurthe-et-Moselle department2015 ST 46 206.2 [167.6, 244.7] 386.12012 UI 55 202.3 [168.3, 237.3] 309.82009 UI 35 191.2 [150.7, 231.6] 426.62006 UI 51 201.7 [166.5, 236.9] 322.12012 and 2015 DA 101 204.3 [178.7, 230.0] 171.7 204.3 [178.6, 230.1] 172.52009 and 2015 DA 81 199.5 [171.6, 227.4] 202.7 199.0 [171.1, 227.0] 203.12006 and 2015 DA 97 203.8 [177.8, 229.8] 175.7 203.7 [177.6, 229.8] 177.62009, 2012 and 2015 DA 136 200.7 [178.9, 222.4] 123.3 200.5 [178.8, 222.3] 123.42006, 2012 and 2015 DA 152 203.3 [182.6, 224.0] 111.9 203.4 [182.4, 224.5] 115.32006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 DA 187 201.2 [182.5, 219.9] 90.9 200.9 [182.1, 219.6] 91.7
Lorraine region2015 ST 180 215.0 [196.5, 233.4] 88.42012 UI 240 209.1 [192.9, 225.4] 68.92009 UI 170 212.0 [194.0, 230.0] 84.22006 UI 203 199.7 [181.3, 218.1] 88.12012 and 2015 DA 420 211.6 [199.4, 223.9] 39.0 211.7 [199.4, 224.0] 39.42009 and 2015 DA 350 213.5 [200.6, 226.4] 43.3 213.4 [200.4, 226.5] 44.12006 and 2015 DA 383 206.9 [193.8, 220.0] 44.4 207.3 [194.1, 220.6] 45.82009, 2012 and 2015 DA 590 211.9 [201.5, 222.2] 27.9 211.8 [201.3, 222.3] 28.52006, 2012 and 2015 DA 623 208.0 [197.3, 218.6] 29.4 208.3 [197.6, 219.0] 29.92006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 DA 793 208.7 [199.4, 218.1] 22.8 209.4 [199.7, 219.1] 24.5
aST: standard approach, that is, solely based on the current inventory campaign; UI: updated inventory approach, that is, based on pastinventory campaigns only; DA: data assimilation approach, that is, based on both past and current inventory campaignsbn: number of plots.
Page 39 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Table 3: Estimated sampling-related and model-related variances of the point estimator ofthe 2015 mean standing volume per hectare in mixed stands of oak, beech and hornbeamin the Meurthe-et-Moselle department and the Lorraine region, France, under the hybridinferential framework.
Level and Sampling-related Model-relatedcampaigns variance varianceMeurthe-et-Moselle department2015 385.5 (99.8%) 0.6 (0.2%)2012 307.1 (99.1%) 2.7 (0.9%)2009 425.5 (99.7%) 1.1 (0.3%)2006 294.7 (91.5%) 27.4 (8.5%)2012 and 2015 169.8 (98.9%) 1.9 (1.1%)2009 and 2015 201.2 (99.3%) 1.4 (0.7%)2006 and 2015 166.9 (95.0%) 8.8 (5.0%)2009, 2012 and 2015 120.9 (98.1%) 2.3 (1.9%)2006, 2012 and 2015 107.1 (95.8%) 4.7 (4.2%)2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 85.6 (94.1%) 5.3 (5.9%)
Lorraine region2015 88.0 (99.5%) 0.5 (0.5%)2012 65.4 (94.8%) 3.6 (5.2%)2009 75.8 (90.1%) 8.3 (9.9%)2006 65.5 (74.4%) 22.5 (25.6%)2012 and 2015 37.4 (95.9%) 1.6 (4.1%)2009 and 2015 41.1 (94.8%) 2.2 (5.2%)2006 and 2015 37.8 (85.1%) 6.6 (14.9%)2009, 2012 and 2015 25.3 (90.7%) 2.6 (9.3%)2006, 2012 and 2015 23.9 (81.5%) 5.4 (18.5%)2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 18.2 (80.1%) 4.5 (19.9%)
Page 40 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Figures713
Figure captions714
Figure 1 - Conceptual flowchart of the two methods used to integrate the information of past715
forest inventory campaigns into the current campaign.716
Figure 2 - Location of the ground plots of the 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 NFI campaigns in717
the Lorraine region (light grey) and the Meurthe-et-Moselle department (dark grey). Some718
GIS layers from the GeoBoundaries dataset (www.wm.edu/as/data-science/researchlabs/719
geolab/get_data/geoboundaries), the European Environment Agency website (www.eea.720
europa.eu) and the Natural Earth website (www.naturalearthdata.com) were used to pro-721
duce the map base. The plot coordinates were retrieved from the French NFI database,722
which is available from the website of the Institut national de l’information géographique et723
forestière (http://www.ign.fr/). The layers were compiled using QGIS 2.18.724
Figure 3 - Flowchart of MATHILDE for a single growth step. dt is the step length which can725
range from three to six years. In stochastic mode, random deviates for the uncertainty in the726
parameter estimates and the residual variation are drawn for all the submodels as indicated727
by the boxes. The letters a, b and c indicate that random deviates are also drawn to account728
for plot, growth step and tree random effects, respectively.729
Figure 4 - Relative decreases of the total variance in function of the relative increases of the730
sample size under the hybrid inferential framework. The point located at (1,1) represents the731
reference, that is a standard inventory based on the 2015 campaign only. The other labels732
Page 41 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
indicate which inventory campaign was updated and merged with the 2015 campaign.733
Page 42 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
t-3
t-2
t-1
t
Update to t using the model
Update to t using the model
Update to t using the model
Use hybrid point and variance estimators
Combine estimates
using Bayes'
theorem
t
t-3
t-2
t-1
t
Update to t using the model
Update to t using the model
Update to t using the model
t
t
t
Use hybrid point and variance estimators
Use hybrid point and variance estimators
Use hybrid point and variance estimators
Use hybrid point and variance estimators
b) Hybrid inferential framework combined with the Bayesian method
a) Hybrid inferential framework
Figure 1: Conceptual flowchart of the two methods used to integrate the information of pastforest inventory campaigns into the current campaign.
Page 43 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Figure 2: Location of the ground plots of the 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 NFI campaigns inthe Lorraine region (light grey) and the Meurthe-et-Moselle department (dark grey). SomeGIS layers from the GeoBoundaries dataset (www.wm.edu/as/data-science/researchlabs/geolab/get_data/geoboundaries), the European Environment Agency website (www.eea.europa.eu) and the Natural Earth website (www.naturalearthdata.com) were used to pro-duce the map base. The plot coordinates were retrieved from the French NFI database,which is available from the website of the Institut national de l’information géographique etforestière (http://www.ign.fr/). The layers were compiled using QGIS 2.18.
Page 44 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
Predict harvest occurrence
a
b
b
a,c
b
a
Figure 3: Flowchart of MATHILDE for a single growth step. dt is the step length which canrange from three to six years. In stochastic mode, random deviates for the uncertainty in theparameter estimates and the residual variation are drawn for all the submodels as indicatedby the boxes. The letters a, b and c indicate that random deviates are also drawn to accountfor plot, growth step and tree random effects, respectively.
Page 45 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Draft
Updating plots to improve small-area estimates
2006
2009
2012
200620122012
2009
201220092006
2015 only
2006
2009
2012
20062012
20122009
201220092006
2015 only
b) Lorraine region
a) Meurthe-et-Moselledepartment
Figure 4: Relative decreases of the total variance in function of the relative increases of thesample size under the hybrid inferential framework. The point located at (1,1) represents thereference, that is a standard inventory based on the 2015 campaign only. The other labelsindicate which inventory campaign was updated and merged with the 2015 campaign.
Page 46 of 46
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Recommended