Skip to Main Content
Implications of random variation in the Stand Prognosis ModelAuthor(s): David A. Hamilton
Source: Research Note INT-394. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station; 1991. 11 p.
Publication Series: Research Note (RN)
Station: Intermountain Forest Experiment Station
View PDF (500 B)
DescriptionAlthough the Stand Prognosis Model has several stochastic components, features have been included in the model in an attempt to minimize run-to-run variation attributable to these stochastic components. This has led many users to assume that comparisons of management alternatives could be made based on a single run of the model for each alternative. Recent analyses have demonstrated that this assumption may often be incorrect. Several possible solutions are given, and the author recommends that in almost all applications of the Stand Prognosis Model it would be wise to make at least two or three projections for each alternative. The number of replications required for any specific application must be determined by evaluating the tradeoff between the added costs of additional replications and the need for additional precision based on intended uses of model output.
Publication Web Site:
- You may send email to email@example.com to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
CitationHamilton, David A. 1991. Implications of random variation in the Stand Prognosis Model. Res. Note INT-RN-394. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station; 1991. 11 p.
Keywordsgrowth projection, management planning, modeling
- A spatial stochastic programming model for timber and core area management under risk of fires
- A spatial stochastic programming model for timber and core area management under risk of stand-replacing fire
- Additivity and maximum likelihood estimation of nonlinear component biomass models
XML: View XML