Evaluation of the double normal distribution for tree diameter distribution modeling
The double normal distribution consists of two normal distributions truncated at their means and then combined in such a way, that points of truncation now become the overall distribution mode. So far, parameters of the double normal distribution have been estimated exclusively using the method of m...
Saved in:
Published in: | Silva fennica (Helsinki, Finland : 1967) Vol. 47; no. 2 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Finnish Society of Forest Science
2013
|
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | The double normal distribution consists of two normal distributions truncated at their means and then combined in such a way, that points of truncation now become the overall distribution mode. So far, parameters of the double normal distribution have been estimated exclusively using the method of moments. This study evaluates the maximum likelihood method for the estimation of the double normal distribution parameters in Scots pine stands in Poland, and compares it to the results of the method of moments and the two-parameter Weibull distribution fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the method of moments. Presented results show that it is not recommended to use the maximum likelihood method of parameter fitting with Nelder-Mead and quasi-Newton optimization algorithms for the double normal distribution for small samples. However, it can be used for large samples, giving the fit comparable to the two-parameter Weibull distribution and providing parameters having sound practical and biological meaning. In the case of smaller samples for the double normal distribution it is recommended to apply the maximum likelihood method with the alternative simulated annealing optimization algorithm, use the method of moments or substitute the described distribution with more the flexible and robust Weibull distribution. For the smaller samples, the method of moments was superior to the maximum likelihood method. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2242-4075 2242-4075 |
DOI: | 10.14214/sf.956 |