DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA

prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2014 str. 35 <-- 35 --> PDF |

some regression coefficients do not differ significantly from zero, both for fitting and validation data, and model 3, for which regression coefficients do not differ significantly from zero, for validation data (Table 7). Therefore, the selected model is: 2. Constant form factor 3.4 Selection of the best regression model and validation for site type C – Odabir najpovoljnijeg modela regresije za lokaciju CAs for site type C, all models have negative values for R^{2}, either for fitting or validation data, so we cannot choose one.3.5 Selection of the best regression model and validation for the study area as a whole – Odabir najpovoljnijeg modela regresije za sve tri lokacije zajednoAnalysis of data as a whole, i.e. without distinguishing site types, gave highly satisfactory results, both for fitting and validation data (Table 9). After rejecting models 4 and 5, because some of their regression coefficients for fitting data are not statistically significant at the level p<0.05 (Table 7) and models 1, 3, 4 and 5, because their regression coefficients for validation data are not statistically significant at the level p<0.05 (Table 7), the following model was selected: 2. Constant form factor 3.6 Nearest neighbour analysis – Analiza najbližih susjedaSampled trees of site type C had the most distant neighbours (Table 4), while the majority of their neighbours were Pinus sylvestris trees (Table 5). |