Full text of this article is only available in PDF format.

Jorge Cancino (email), Joachim Saborowski

Comparison of randomized branch sampling with and without replacement at the first stage

Cancino J., Saborowski J. (2005). Comparison of randomized branch sampling with and without replacement at the first stage. Silva Fennica vol. 39 no. 2 article id 384. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.384

Abstract

Randomized Branch Sampling (RBS) is a multistage sampling procedure using natural branching in order to select samples for the estimation of tree characteristics. Usually, sampling units are selected with unequal probabilities. Conventional RBS uses sampling with replacement (SWR) for repeated sampling on the first stage, and the sample size equals 1 on all subsequent stages, thus resulting in n so-called sample paths. When the sampling fraction is large multiple selections of first stage units are likely. Sampling without replacement (SWOR) at the first stage is an alternative that is expected to increase efficiency of the procedure. In this case, the second stage sample size m must be larger than 1 to enable unbiased variance estimation. In the present study, a theoretical and an empirical comparison of the conventional RBS and the SWOR variant was accomplished. Requiring a certain precision of the RBS estimation, the conventional RBS method is mostly more time-consuming than the variant with SWOR at the first stage. Only if m = 1 is chosen as second stage sample size for the SWOR RBS, this is often more time-consuming. In those cases, conventional RBS is up to 5% cheaper. In general, the larger m is, the more expensive is conventional RBS compared with the variant with swor at the first stage. The smaller the ratio of the variance between the primary units to the total variance of the estimate, the larger is the advantage of the SWOR variant. Generally, it can be shown that the gain of efficiency by SWOR is larger in case of weak correlations between auxiliary and target variable.

Keywords
Randomized Branch Sampling; sampling without replacement; probability proportional to size; unequal selection probabilities; multistage sampling

Author Info
  • Cancino, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Chile E-mail jcancino@udec.cl (email)
  • Saborowski, Institut für Forstliche Biometrie und Informatik, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany E-mail js@nn.de

Received 29 July 2004 Accepted 29 March 2005 Published 31 December 2005

Views 10037

Available at https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.384 | Download PDF

Creative Commons License CC BY-SA 4.0

Register
Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.
Log in
If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.
Contents alert
Sign up to receive alerts of new content

Your selected articles
Send to email
Anttila P., Nummelin T. et al. (2020) The effect of winter weather on timber truck tar.. Silva Fennica vol. 54 no. 4 article id 10385 (remove) | Edit comment
Katila M., Rajala T. et al. (2020) Assessing local trends in indicators of ecosyste.. Silva Fennica vol. 54 no. 4 article id 10347 (remove) | Edit comment
Díaz-Yáñez O., Mola-Yudego B. et al. (2017) What variables make a forest stand vulnerable to.. Silva Fennica vol. 51 no. 2 article id 1693 (remove) | Edit comment
Kallio T., Selander J. et al. (1974) Labelling of Fomes annosus basidiospores with ra.. Silva Fennica vol. 8 no. 1 article id 4893 (remove) | Edit comment
Rogers M. T., (1957) Ring-shadows Silva Fennica vol. no. 93 article id 4673 (remove) | Edit comment
Bhat K. M., Kärkkäinen M. (1981) Variation in structure and selected properties o.. Silva Fennica vol. 15 no. 2 article id 5115 (remove) | Edit comment
Tullus A., Sellin A. et al. (2014) Increasing air humidity – a climate trend predic.. Silva Fennica vol. 48 no. 4 article id 1107 (remove) | Edit comment
Aaltonen V. T., (1939) Root systems of trees and forest management Silva Fennica vol. no. 52 article id 4552 (remove) | Edit comment
Gustafsson L., Appelgren L. et al. (2005) Biodiversity value of potential forest fertilisa.. Silva Fennica vol. 39 no. 2 article id 383 (remove) | Edit comment
Jalkanen R., Hicks S. et al. (2008) Past pollen production reconstructed from needle.. Silva Fennica vol. 42 no. 4 article id 230 (remove) | Edit comment
Havimo M., Rikala J. et al. (2008) Distributions of tracheid cross-sectional dimens.. Silva Fennica vol. 42 no. 1 article id 266 (remove) | Edit comment
Palahí M., Pukkala T. et al. (2006) Calibrating predicted tree diameter distribution.. Silva Fennica vol. 40 no. 3 article id 332 (remove) | Edit comment
Monteleone I., Ferrazzini D. et al. (2006) Effectiveness of neutral RAPD markers to detect .. Silva Fennica vol. 40 no. 3 article id 476 (remove) | Edit comment
Saksa T., Miina J. (2007) Cleaning methods in planted Scots pine stands in.. Silva Fennica vol. 41 no. 4 article id 274 (remove) | Edit comment
Kojola S., Penttilä T. et al. (2004) Impacts of different thinning regimes on the yie.. Silva Fennica vol. 38 no. 4 article id 407 (remove) | Edit comment
Kellomäki S., Haapanen A. et al. (1976) Tree stands in urban noise abatement. Silva Fennica vol. 10 no. 3 article id 4949 (remove) | Edit comment
Cancino J., Saborowski J. (2005) Comparison of randomized branch sampling with an.. Silva Fennica vol. 39 no. 2 article id 384 (remove) | Edit comment
Your search results