Gorgoso-Varela, Jose JavierAdedapo, Segun M.Ogana, Friday N.2024-03-272024-03-272024-02-22Gorgoso-Varela, J.J.; Adedapo, S.M.; Ogana, F.N. A Comparison of Probability Density Functions Fitted by Moments and Maximum Likelihood Estimation Methods Used for Diameter Distribution Estimation. Forests 2024, 15, 425.https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118469Modeling diameter distribution is a crucial aspect of forest management, requiring the selection of an appropriate probability density function or cumulative distribution function along with a fitting method. This study compared the suitability of eight probability density functions&mdash;A Charlier, beta, generalized beta, gamma, Gumbel, Johnson&rsquo;s SB, and Weibull (two- and three-parameter)&mdash;fitted using both derivative methods (Moments) fitted in SAS/STAT<sup>TM</sup> and optimization methods (MLE) fitted with the &lsquo;optim&rsquo; function in R for diameter distribution estimation in forest stands. The A Charlier and Gumbel functions were used for the first time in this type of comparison. The data were derived from 167 permanent sample plots in an Atlantic forest (<i>Quercus robur</i>) and 59 temporary sample plots in tropical forests (<i>Tectona grandis</i>). Fit quality was assessed using various indices, including Kolmogorov&ndash;Smirnov, Cram&eacute;r&ndash;von Mises, mean absolute error, bias, and mean squared error. The results indicated that Johnson&rsquo;s SB function was more suitable for describing the diameter distribution of the stands. Johnson&rsquo;s SB, three-parameter Weibull, and generalized beta consistently performed well across different fitting methods, while the fits produced by gamma, Gumbel, and two-parameter Weibull were of poor quality.application/pdfenCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalJohnson’s SBWeibullgeneralized betaparameter estimationQuercus roburTectona grandisA Comparison of Probability Density Functions Fitted by Moments and Maximum Likelihood Estimation Methods Used for Diameter Distribution EstimationArticle - Refereed2024-03-27Forestshttps://doi.org/10.3390/f15030425