• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Comparison of estimators of variance for forest inventories with systematic samplingresults from artificial populations

    2020-07-16 07:19:14SteenMagnussenRonaldMcRobertsJohannesBreidenbachThomasNordLarsenranSthlLutzFehrmannandSebastianSchnell
    Forest Ecosystems 2020年2期

    Steen Magnussen,Ronald E.McRoberts,Johannes Breidenbach,Thomas Nord-Larsen,G?ran St?hl,Lutz Fehrmann and Sebastian Schnell

    Abstract

    Keywords: Spatial autocorrelation, Linear trend, Model based, Design biased,Matérn variance, Successive difference replication variance, Geary contiguity coefficient, Random site effects

    Introduction

    Forest inventories have a long history of using systematic sampling (Spurr 1952, p 379) that continues to this date at both local, regional, and national levels (Brooks and Wiant Jr 2004; Kangas and Maltamo 2006; Nelson et al.2008; Tomppo et al. 2010; Vidal et al. 2016). Since forests exhibit non-random spatial structures (Sherrill et al.2008; Alves et al. 2010; von Gadow et al. 2012; Pagliarella et al. 2018), the main benefit of a uniform sampling intensity across a population under study (i.e. spatial balance) is an anticipated lower variance in an estimate of the population mean (total). However, the lack of a design-unbiased estimator of variance for the mean(total) remains a detractor (Gregoire and Valentine 2008,p 55).We do not have a design-unbiased estimator of variance for systematic sampling because the sampling locations are fixed by one independent random selection of a starting point and a sampling interval (d). With only one random draw, the systematic sample can be regarded as a random selection of one cluster with an undefined design-based variance (Wolter 2007, p 298).

    Without a design-unbiased estimator of variance, it becomes a challenge to quantify the advantage of systematic sampling, and to compute reliable confidence intervals for estimated population parameters. The wide-spread use of a variance estimator for SRS without replacement (S?rndal et al. 1992, p 28) masks the advantage (efficiency) since this estimator tends to overestimate the actual variance (Wolter 1984; Fewster 2011). An overestimation that is, possibly, regarded as less problematic than an underestimation, and often referred to as a “conservative estimate”.

    The bias in the variance estimator for SRS when applied to data from a single systematic sample was recognized early on in Scandinavian countries by Lindeberg(1924), Langs?ter (1926), and N?slund (1930), and in North America by Osborne (1942), and Hasel (1942).Lindeberg, Langs?ter, and N?slund also proposed new estimators of variance that generated more realistic estimates of variance for line-transect surveys (Ibid.). Variations of these estimators were later credited to others(Wolter 2007,ch. 8.2).

    To convince an inventory analyst - with sample data collected under a systematic design - to employ an alternative to the estimator for SRS requires assurance that the alternative is nearly design-unbiased. That is, the expected value of the alternative estimator, over all possible (K) systematic samples from a finite population, is equal to or close to the variance among the K sample means (Madow and Madow 1944). Assurances of this kind will have to come from simulated systematic sampling from actual or artificial populations.

    The lack of a design-unbiased estimator of variance means that any applied estimator is biased for the actual design variance (Opsomer et al. 2012; Fattorini et al.2018b). Variance estimators used in lieu of the design variance may carry the assumption that the sampling design is ignorable, or that any explicitly or implicitly stated model regarding the population is true (Gregoire 1998; Magnussen 2015). For example, when the estimator for SRS is applied to a systematic sample from a finite population, the design is ignored, and the variance is computed under the assumption that the sample values are independent.

    In this study, we compare the performance of four alternatives to the estimator of variance for SRS in a suite of artificial populations with contrasting covariance structures and with or without a global linear trend. The performance in actual forest populations is deferred to a forthcoming study. The alternatives achieved - with respect to accuracy - a top ranking amongst 11 candidates in a preliminary study with 27 superpopulations described in Magnussen and Fehrmann (2019).

    Although our primary focus is on systematic sampling designs with small populations (to expedite computations),and higher than practiced sampling intensities, we demonstrate that a ranking of the relative performances of estimators will be preserved in larger populations and a lower sampling intensity. We extend the same expectations to non-aligned and quasi systematic designs (S?rndal et al.1992, 3.4.2; Grafstr?m et al. 2014; Mostafa and Ahmad 2017;Wilhelm et al.2017),and possibly the random tessellated stratified design (Stevens and Olsen 2004; Fattorini et al.2009;Magnussen and Nord-Larsen 2019).

    Materials and methods

    Artificial populations

    The four alternative estimators of variance are evaluated in realizations of two superpopulations: one (U1) with a stronger positive spatial autocorrelation between units in a single sample, and the other (U0) with a near zero spatial autocorrelation. Global linear trends (‘strong’,‘moderate’, ‘weak’, or ‘none’) are present in both U1 and U0. Populations without a linear trend are weakly stationary (Cressie 1993, p 53). An attractive estimator of variance will generate estimates that are close to the actual variance regardless of the strength of a spatial autocorrelation or the presence of a global trend. In practice,the effects of a significant trend can be mitigated by formulating a model (parametric or non-parametric) for the trend (Valliant et al. 2000, p 57; Opsomer et al.2012) or stratification (Dahlke et al. 2013).

    The two superpopulations U1 and U0 are composed of N=57,600 equal size (area) spatial units arranged in a regular array with 240 rows and 240 columns. Edge effects is therefore not an issue in our study (Gregoire and Scott 2003). In an attempt to generate unit level autocorrelation in values of y compatible with forest structures, we generated random realizations (populations)U1, U2, …. from U1 and U0 with three additive random‘site’ effects (s1, s2, s3), operating at different spatial scales, plus unit-level random noise. The number of random spatial site effects is arbitrary. We know that forest attribute values depend on a multitude of factors operating at different spatial scales (Weiskittel et al. 2011). We consider three levels of site effects (e.g. soil, climate, and management) in our simulations of forest populations with a complex spatial structure.

    To generate a site effect, the population under study was tessellated into a set of convex polygons (M?ller 1994). Then a site effect was assigned to each polygon by a random draw from a distribution specified for the site effect in question. All units with at least half their area in a polygon inherit the site effect of the polygon.The number, size, and centroids of polygons for a site effect varies from one realization of a superpopulation to the next according to random draws from distributions for the number and placement of polygons. A complete population was then composed of three spatial layers of polygon specific site effects (Fig.1), and one complete(240×240) layer of unit-level random noise.

    Accordingly, the unit-level value yijin the ith row and jth column (i, j=1, …, 240) in a realization from a superpopulation is the sum of three random site effects s1, s2, and s3, a global trend τ, and random noise (e).We have

    where sTij(T=1, 2, 3) is the random site effect associated with the polygon in which unit ij resides, τijis a unit specific trend effect, and eijis an independent random Gaussian noise. All units within a polygon share the site effect assigned to the polygon, which gives rise to a positive covariance among unit site effects within the polygon (Searle et al. 1992, ch. 11.2). To control the total variance in a study variable, the sum of site effects and random noise was standardized to a mean of zero and a variance of one. Technical details are deferred to the Additional file 1.

    In addition to the spatial autocorrelation, we simulated three levels of a non-null global linear trend(Table 1) in addition to the simulations without a trend(τij=0 ?{i,j}).

    Six random realizations of population values of yijwithout a trend are shown in Fig.2. They convey, as intended, a complex mosaic of the overlapping site effects. The visual resemblance of different realizations from a single superpopulation is low.

    Sample-based maximum likelihood estimates of the autocorrelation function (acf, Anderson 1976, p 4) in the six populations in Fig.2 are given in Fig.3. One acf is shown for each of the possible samples under a given design. A considerable sample-to-sample variation is visible in some illustrations.

    There is no variance heteroscedasticity in the simulated noise. To gauge its impact, we ran separate simulations with heteroscedasticity but only sketch the results in the discussion.

    Table 1 Linear trend models and unit level trend components τij (i, j=0.5, 1.5,…, 239.5;cf. (1))

    The population size in simulation studies are typically orders of magnitude smaller than actual finite populations.For the purpose of evaluating the relative performance of alternative variance estimators against a design variance,it is only important to stage:i)gradients of a spatial autocorrelation as done by choices of sample size; and ii) linear trends that will interact with sample size. A testing in a series of increasingly larger populations and across multiple spatial covariance structures is necessary if the relative performances of our estimators of variance are sensitive to sample size and/or trends. To assuage concerns about population size and sample size, we extended the simulations to include larger populations and a smaller sample size.

    Sampling designs

    Four systematic sampling designs are employed in the main study. Each design is defined by the sampling interval (d) in units in both of the two cardinal directions defining the population (here rows and columns)and a starting position (Cochran 1977, ch. 8.1; S?rndal et al. 1992, ch. 3.4.1; Fuller 2009, ch. 1.2.4). We have d=6, 8, 10, and 12. With a population matrix structure of 240 rows and 240 columns, the corresponding sample sizes were n=1600 (d=6), 900 (d=8), 576 (d=10),and 400 (d=12). We simulated all possible systematic samples (K) under a given design. The K starting positions by row and column were (di, dj), (di, dj)=1, …, d.Accordingly, K=d2or 36, 64, 100, and 144 for the designs with d=6, 8, 10, and 12. All K samples for a fixed sample size were executed and replicated 30 times, each time with K samples from a new random realization of a superpopulation (U1 or U0). Hence our results come from 2(superpopulations)×4(linear trends)×4(sample sizes)×30=960 random realizations (480 from U1 and 480 from U0). With 30 realizations from a superpopulation, the relative standard error of the mean of a design variance was approximately 3% for sample sizes 400 and 576, and 5% for sample sizes 900 and 1600.

    A sampling design was implemented by selecting all possible (K) different (or non-identical) systematic samples under the given sampling interval d. Specifically, we first divide a 240×240 population into n =(240/d)2square blocks each with d rows and d columns. To select a single systematic sample, one would pick a random integer (k) from the set {1, …,K=d2) and then select one unit at position k from each of the n blocks. An example with d=6, and k=4 and k=20 is in Fig.4.

    Note, Thompson (1992) defines a systematic sampling by primary and secondary sampling units. For designs with one primary unit and n secondary units, as the case is here, and in most natural resource surveys, we can,without consequence,dispense with the notion of primary sampling units, consider the secondary units as sample units,and take n as sample size(Thompson 1992,p 113).

    Supplementary populations and sample designs

    A population size of 240×240=57,600 is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of actual finite regional or national forest populations. Conversely, even a sampling intensity of n/N=400/57,600 or 0.7%is an order of magnitude greater than in practice. To augment the practical relevancy of our simulations, we gauged the impact of reducing the sample size to n=100 in trendless populations with a spatial autocorrelation and sizes N=57,600 unit (as in the main study), N=230,400 units in a 480×480 array, and N=921,600 units in a 960×960 array.The site effects were preserved at the levels detailed for the main study, but the number of polygons carrying a site specific effect was either defined as for the 240×240 unit populations in the main study, or doubled for N=230,400 units, or quadrupled for N=921,600 units. Thus the sample autocorrelation functions driving the variances will depend exclusively on the sampling interval (d=24,48,or 96),the size(number)of the site polygons and their overlaps. Results with the RIP estimator of variance were dropped in consideration of the time required to compute the results with this estimator.

    Variance estimators

    In accordance with the populations under consideration,the variance estimators considered are cast for finite populations composed of N units. For these populations under a given systematic design there is a finite number(K) of distinct (non-overlapping) samples. With minor modifications the estimators also apply to infinite (continuous) populations of sample locations (points), but here K=∞{Mandallaz 2008 #10986} and there is no finite population correction in the variance estimators.

    Design variance

    The design-based variance (DES) for systematic sampling in a finite population (Madow and Madow 1944)is

    Variance estimator for simple random sampling

    The SRS estimator of variance - when applied to a sample selected under a systematic design - ignores the actual (spatial) ordering of the sampled units, and, by extension, any covariance between these units. Let yidenote the ith unit in one of the K possible samples obtained under a systematic design. For a systematic sample of size n, taken from a population of N units, the estimator of variance is

    Matérn’s estimator of variance

    Matérn (1947) proposed a per point (i.e. local) estimator of variance inspired, in part, by the pioneering work of Langs?ter (1932), Langs?ter (1926), and Lindeberg (1924). These authors suggested the use of first- and second-order differences as a mean to reduce the effect of local trends resulting in autocorrelation (Wolter 2007, ch. 8.2.1.). To our knowledge, the Swedish and Finnish national forest inventories (NFI)were the first to adopt a variant of his estimator(Ranneby et al. 1987; Heikkinen 2006).

    In Matérn’s estimator, the sample locations are split into Q non-overlapping groups of four nearest neighbours. An example is in Fig.5. Two predictions of the local mean are constructed for each group, and the squared difference of these predictions is taken as the per point variance.

    With the notation in Fig.5,the two local predictions are computed as(yi,(j+1)+y(i+1),j)/2 and(yi,j+y(i+1),(j+1))/2.The final estimator of variance is the average per point variance. Modern parallels to this estimator can be found in texts on ordinary kriging (for example, Cressie 1989,ch. 3.2). Examples of practical applications with this estimator can be found in (Kangas 1993, 1994; Lappi 2001;Ekstr?m and Sj?stedt-de Luna 2004;Tomppo 2006).

    In populations where a sample location can be outside the domain of interest (here forest), at least one sample location in each group must be in the domain. Computation of Matérn’s variance estimate is carried out with mean-centred values of yij. Within each group, the value of yijin locations outside the domain of interest is set to 0 (viz. the mean of all yijin the sample). We have(Matérn 1980, ch. 6.7, p 121; Ranneby et al. 1987)

    where nqis the number of sample locations in a group in forest, and q ?{i,j} means that group q includes sample location {i, j}. Note, when all Q groups have four locations in the domain of interest, there is no need to mean-centre the observations. Conversely, the implicit imputation of the mean to location outside the domain of interest will, on average, inflate the variance in populations with autocorrelation.

    Successive difference replication estimator of variance

    The successive difference replication estimator of variance (SDR) was proposed by Fay and Train (1995). According to Fay and Train, SDR is an improvement over the first- and second-order difference estimators first proposed by (Lindeberg 1924) and later detailed in Wolter (2007). Like in a jackknife estimator of variance(Efron 1982),a number 2r-with r an integer and 2r-n-2 ≥0 - of pseudo-values of the sample mean is produced,and then the variance among these pseudo-values is taken as an estimate of the design variance in Eq. (1). For a sample size of, for example 400, we take r=9, and the number of pseudo-values becomes 512. Each pseudovalue is a weighted average of the n observations in a sample. To apply the SDR to a systematic sample from a spatial population, the sample units must be brought into an order compatible with a sample selected from a population with units arranged in a linear (one-dimensional)structure. SDR is applicable to a wide array of sampling designs(Opsomer et al.2016).

    With our population units, identified by their row and column position in a grid, we applied the SDR estimator of variance with the n sample units ordered row-wise, column-wise, and to a shortest path (with start in the first sampled unit) through the n sample locations (Fig.6).

    The simple average of the three SDR estimates of variance obtained with the row-wise, the column-wise, and the shortest path ordering of the sample is our SDR estimate of variance for a single systematic sample. The SDR estimator applicable to an ordered sample with r pseudo-values of the population mean is:

    Ripley’s estimator of variance

    Ripley’s estimator Ripley (2004) is model based and applies to a continuous (in y) population with infinitely many possible sampling locations (Mandallaz 2008, pp.60-62). Applied to a systematic sample of size n from a contiguous spatial area (A) equal to the extent of the finite populations under study, we have

    We chose the distance-dependent covariance function for an isotropic weakly stationary fractional Gaussian noise process (FNG, Baillie 1996). FNG’s have been used to characterize ‘long-term’ memory processes (Johannesson et al. 2007; Nothdurft and Vospernik 2018). Accordingly, the covariance between observations from two units or two points separated by a distance h is

    Computation of the last two terms in Eq. (6) can be demanding, in particular for large populations with an irregular spatial outline. In our computations we used Monte-Carlo integration (Robert and Casella 1999, ch. 5.3.2) over 2400 random points in A to obtain the second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (6). To compute the third term on the r.h.s of Eq. (6) we exploited the fact that in a spatially continuous population with a simple geometric structure, we can integrate over all possible distances with a probability distribution function for the distance between two randomly selected points (Ripley 1977).

    D’Orazio’s estimator of variance

    D’Orazio’s estimator of variance (D'Orazio 2003) provides a correction (c) to the SRS estimator of variance intended to capture the effect of a spatial autocorrelation. The correction is through Geary’s contiguity ratio c - a measure of the spatial association between a sample unit value of y and the y-values in its nearest(spatial) neighbours (Geary 1954). Geary’s c takes a value of 1.0 when there is no association, while a c <1 suggests a positive spatial association, and a c >1 a negative association. The estimator showed promising results in a recent simulation study (Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019).

    The idea behind D’Orazio’s estimator, hereafter referred to as DOR, is simple. From Eq. (2) it is clear that the desired design variance is the variance among the K sample means whereas the SRS variance in Eq. (3) is the within sample variance of a sample mean. Consider a breakdown of the fixed total variance in a (finite) population into a within- and between sample variance. With a positive (negative) spatial covariance among units in a population the among-sample variance will decrease (increase) relative to a population without a spatial covariance. This follows because the sum of the within-sample variance is inflated (deflated) by the covariance. Since the SRS estimator does not account for the within sample covariance, it requires a correction. D’Orazio opted to use Geary’s contiguity ratio as a correction factor since it represents an extension of the Durbin-Watson(DW) statistic (Durbin and Watson 1950) to a spatial context. The DW statistic was successful in explaining the apparent efficiency of nearest-neighbour poststratification in systematic sampling from populations arranged in a linear array (Ripley 2004, pp. 26-27). The DOR estimator of variance is

    Monte-Carlo error in estimated variances

    With 30 replications of K possible samples, the Monte-Carlo error (Koehler et al. 2009) on the average of an estimated variance was 4.6% (n=400) to 1.6% (n=1600) with the SRS estimator, 2.7% with the MAT estimator, 2.6% with the SDR estimator, and 1.2% (n=400) to 13.8% (n=1600) with the RIP estimator, and 2.4% with DOR.

    Estimator performance

    Results

    Populations with autocorrelation and no trend

    Results with D’Orazio’s estimator of variance in Fig.7 were nearly perfectly correlated with results from Matérn’s (0.992-0.995) and the SDR estimator (0.999-1.000) and therefore not detailed separately.

    In terms of absolute deviations from the design-based variance, Matérn’s estimator was attractive when sample sizes were 400 and 576. In these settings, the average MAT estimate of variance - over the K samples - was in 17 (n=400) and 18 (n=576) out of 30 realizations of a superpopulation the least biased (Fig.8). With n=900,the MAT estimator was in 13 realizations the least biased, and Ripley’s estimator was 9 times the least biased. With the largest sample size (n=1600) RIP and DOR are the least biased in 11 and 10 realizations,respectively.

    In terms of the distribution of absolute deviations,Fig.10 indicates a better anticipated performance of DOR and SDR with MAT as the runner up. RIP is a distant fourth and closest to the distribution provided by SRS.

    Should an analyst prefer an estimator that has a variance that is not only at least 20% below the variance with SRS, but also not underestimating the design variance, the choice would again be SDR and DOR with an estimated probability of 0.45 and 0.48 for satisfying this criterion in our simulations. Corresponding results for MAT and RIP were 0.34 and 0.12.

    Populations with autocorrelation and a linear trend

    A global linear trend, unless accounted for by modelling or stratification, will increase the variance in sampled values of y. In the scenarios with a linear trend the SRS estimator of variance was again, by a wide margin, the most conservative of the five tested estimators (Table 2).The overestimation of variance increased rapidly with the strength of the linear trend, from 50% with a weak trend to 188% with a strong trend. Sample size (from 400 to 1600) had, in comparison, only a minor effect.Results with the MAT estimator were better. Its poorest performance was an overestimation of 19% in populations with a strong linear trend and a sample size of 400(d=12), in all other settings the estimated variance was within 4 percentage points of the design variance. The performances of SDR and DOR were similar but consistently lagged that of MAT, especially in the populations with a strong linear trend. The RIP estimator performed worse than MAT, SDR, and DOR in combinations of a strong or moderate trend and a sample size of 400. With a sample size of 1600 and a moderate or a weak trend,the performances of the four estimators MAT, SDR, RIP,and DOR were, from a practical perspective, similar.

    Populations with near zero autocorrelation and no trend

    In a population with a near zero autocorrelation, the proposed alternative estimators (MAT, SDR, RIP, and DOR) and the SRS should, ideally, generate estimates of variance close to the actual design variance (DES).As can be taken from Table 3, this was the case across all sample sizes and realizations of a superpopulation (hint: paired equal variance t-test p-values for the null hypothesis of no difference were all greater than 0.05). The applicability of the t-distribution was ascertained with a KS-test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, P >0.34, Barr and Davidson 1973). We failed in all cases to reject the null hypothesis of a tdistribution.

    Populations with a near zero autocorrelation and a linear trend

    In populations with a near zero autocorrelation and a linear trend, the SRS estimator of variance was consistently the most conservative(Table 4)with an overestimation that increased with sample size and strength of a linear trend.Estimates obtained with MAT, SDR, RIP, and DOR were all closer to the actual design variance than the SRS estimates of variance,but with a distinct sensitivity to the interaction between sample size(sampling interval)and strength of the linear trend. With n=1600 the four alternative overestimated the actual variance by 22%-24%, but with n=400 the MAT, SDR, and DOR estimator underestimated the variance by 1% to 5%, whereas RIP overestimated the design variance,most(22%)in presence of a strong trend,and least(2%)with a weak trend.

    Scaling to larger populations and a smaller sample fraction

    With the results from the supplementary populations and sample designs we gauge the scalability of the results from the main study in Table 5. DES and SRS variances were almost constant across the three population sizes (57,600; 230,400; and 921,600), as predicted by theory. Variances obtained with MAT, SDR,and DOR were in all cases closer to the estimates of design variance than were the variances obtained with SRS. MAT was in each case closest to the DES variance but with a standard deviation across realizations almost twice as great as the standard deviation with DES. We also note that as the population size increased and the sample fraction decreased, the variances obtained with MAT, SDR, and DOR drifts - at a slow rate - towards the results of SRS. The DOR estimator has a much smaller standard deviation than MAT and SDR, suggesting that in even larger populations and smaller sample sizes, this estimator may, on a single-sample basis, frequently outperform MAT and SDR.

    Table 2 Estimated variances in populations with spatial autocorrelation and a strong, a moderate, and a weak global linear trend.All table entries are means across 30 realizations of a super-population with autocorrelation and a linear trend,and the K possible sample for a given sampling interval(d).Variances in parentheses are relative variances with the DES variance fixed at 100.τi, j is the trend component for unit in row i and column j(i,j=0.5, 1.5,…, 239.5)

    Discussion

    Although we have a general methodology for constructing a model-based estimator of variance for systematic sampling that is model unbiased with a minimum root meansquared error (Wolter 2007, ch. 8.2.2), and we appreciate Tobler’s first law of geography (“units separated by a shorter distance are, on average, more similar than units separated by a longer distance”, Tobler 2004), we are still evaluating model-based variance estimators for systematic sampling (McGarvey et al. 2016; Strand 2017; Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019) or proposing new ones (D'Orazio 2003; Clement 2017; Pal and Singh 2017; Fattorini et al.2018a; Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019). A century long occupation that appears to have begun with the efforts by Lindeberg(1924)and Langs?ter(1932).

    Table 3 Paired t-tests under the hypothesis of equal variances.is the difference between the mean estimate derived with SRS,MAT, SDR,RIP, or DOR and the design based variance (DES).is the absolute value of the t-statistics(effect size), and P(|Δ =0) is the probability of a greater under the null hypothesis of a zero difference

    Table 3 Paired t-tests under the hypothesis of equal variances.is the difference between the mean estimate derived with SRS,MAT, SDR,RIP, or DOR and the design based variance (DES).is the absolute value of the t-statistics(effect size), and P(|Δ =0) is the probability of a greater under the null hypothesis of a zero difference

    Estimator contrastn^Δ×104|^t|P(|^t||Δ =0)SRS-DES4000.81.310.20 5760.20.370.72 9000.00.160.87 16000.00.110.91 MAT-DES4000.20.300.77 5760.30.520.61 9000.30.600.55 16000.10.400.69 SDR-DES4000.30.540.60 5760.20.430.67 9000.20.540.59 16000.10.400.69 RIP-DES4000.50.730.47 5760.20.340.74 9000.30.680.50 16000.20.800.43 DOR-DES400-0.50.840.41 576-0.71.390.17 900-0.51.220.23 1600-0.20.730.47

    There is a simple explanation as to why a single omnibus estimator for systematic sampling is unlikely to emerge, and that is the sensitivity of the design variance to a non-random ordering of the population units (S?rndal et al. 1992, ch. 3.3.4). In forestry, we may have numerous non-random structures in any population of forest trees and associated vegetation that directly influence a study variable (Burslem et al. 2001; Scherer-Lorenzen and Schulze 2005). Spatial autocorrelation is just one of many manifestations of a non-random ordering, but it is pivotal for computation of variance in a spatial population.

    The sensitivity of the design variance to a non-random ordering of population units calls for caution when we,from simulation studies, attempt to infer the performance of a variance estimator in a population with an unknown ordering. In particular when an estimator explicit or implicitly assumes a particular model for the study variable. Since “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box 1976), it is risky to assume that a model is true(Wolter 2007,p 305).

    Yet, simulated systematic sampling from artificial or actual populations remains the most expedient method to screen variance estimators for systematic sampling.By necessity artificial populations will be simpler and smaller than actual ones. Ultimately, however, it is the spatial covariance structures in a population that drive the performance of a variance estimator (Fortin et al.2012). Casting the covariance process as the outcome of shared random effects is consistent with Tobler’s first law of geography (Tobler 2004). With autocorrelation arising from three additive site effects - of different strength and operating at three spatial scales - our populations are one step closer to resemble actual forested landscapes than possible with a parametric spatial covariance model (Wolter 2007, ch. 8.3; Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019). A different approach was taken by Hou et al. (2015). They generated spatial covariance structures by manipulating the spatial distribution of live trees in an actual plantation. In terms of the sampling distribution in estimated means, their approach delivered results consistent with ours. A nearly constant relative performances of the five estimators of variance, in populations of different size and more realistic sample fractions, vouch for the scalability of our findings and main results.

    Table 4 Estimated variances in populations with a near zero autocorrelation and a strong, a moderate,and a weak global linear trend.All table entries are means across 30 realizations of a super-population and the K possible samples for a given sampling interval(d).Variances in parentheses are relative variances with the DES variance fixed at 100.τi, j is the trend component for unit in row i and column j(i, j=0.5,1.5…, 239.5)

    Regional trends are commonplace in large-area forest inventories as they include sites with different climates,soils, species,forest structures, and associated forest management practices. If regional trends are not dealt with through modelling or a (post) stratification, they may drastically change the estimate of variance (Matérn 1980,ch. 4.6; S?rndal et al. 1992, p 82; Breidt and Opsomer 2000;Wolter 2007,Table 8.3.1).Our results with a strong,moderate,and weak global linear trend confirmed the sensitivity of the design variance to such trends. Each of the K sample means will differ by an amount determined by the average difference in y between adjoining population units.Regardless of the strength of a global trend,the four tested alternative variance estimators generated variances that were closer to the design variance than possible with the SRS estimator of variance. The MAT estimator is, in theory, robust against a unidirectional trend, but not against our bi-directional trends. In populations with a suspected trend, and no attempt to address the trend by modelling or a stratification, the MAT estimator emerged as most attractive followed by DOR and SDR. In larger populations, the less variable DOR estimator becomes more attractive. To be successful in populations with a trend,the RIP estimator requires a separation of trend and spatial covariance structures, otherwise the performance will be less predictable and more variable.

    Heteroscedasticity is commonplace in data from actual forest inventories, but not included in our study settings.To gauge it importance, we ran simulations with a noise variance that increased linearly by a factor 3 across both rows and columns, and sample sizes 400 and 1600. The results (not shown) were similar to the results in Table 4 for a moderate trend and a near zero autocorrelation.That is, SRS was the most conservative with anoverestimation of variance of 40% (n=400) and 22% (n=1600), and MAT was the estimator with the performance closest to that of the target design variance (i.e. an overestimation of 10% for n=400, and an underestimation of 6%for n=1600).SDR was in this regard the runner up.

    Table 5 Estimated variances with a systematic sample size of n=100 in trend-less populations with autocorrelation,scaled sizes (N),and scaled expected number of site polygons (n(sT),T=1,2,3). All results are based on 30 realizations of a superpopulation, and all or a maximum of 2000 random selections of all possible samples under a systematic sampling design. The standard deviation (^σ)across realizations is indicated(±^σ). Relative variances with DES fixed at 100 are in parentheses

    Despite marked differences in formulation of the MAT, SDR, RIP, and DOR estimators of variance, their expected performance was quite similar in populations without a global trend. The strong correlations among the variances obtained under these conditions, confirms the importance of a first-order autocorrelation since it alone was captured by all four.Higher order autocorrelations enters only in the SDR and RIP estimators.

    The MAT estimator had the lowest expected absolute bias, i.e. the lowest expected risk of over- or underestimating the actual variance. Yet, in practical applications MAT will be sensitive to edge effects. In a fragmented forest landscape, its performance may suffer.The expected performance of DOR and SDR was close to that of MAT. From a practical perspective there is no strong rationale for preferring one over the other in populations with either no trends or with a trend dealt with through modelling or stratification. Otherwise the MAT estimator followed by SDR and DOR can be recommended.

    The expected performance of RIP was sensitive to trends and varied with sample size which makes recommendations to practice more difficult. The sensitivity to sample size is largely a question of the number of integration points for computing the second term in Eq. (6).With 9600 integration points the performance was nearly constant across sample sizes (not shown), but with this number of integration points the computation time became impractical. Moreover, computational challenges in applications with large populations and a fragmented forest landscape, may further detract from its appeal in terms of supportive theory in spatial statistics(Thompson 1992, ch. 21; Ripley 2004).

    In populations with a very weak autocorrelation, all estimators reproduced the design variance with a low margin of error. Thus, the risk of a counter-factual or a spurious result appears to be low with the four alternative estimators of variance.

    In terms of the anticipated performance in a single application (without trends), the DOR and SDR estimators generated a higher frequency of estimates closer to the design variance than estimates from MAT and RIP.Moreover, DOR and SDR were also best in terms of the odds of generating a variance estimate that is at least 20% below the SRS without underestimating the actual variance.

    DOR has two advantages over SDR, it is computationally simpler, and it provides a metric (Geary’s c)of the first-order spatial correlation (association). The magnitude and sign of Geary’s c provides a useful and interpretable statistic. It is fairly straightforward to implement a spatial randomization of the sample locations and repeat the estimation of Geary’s c a large number of times to obtain the distribution of c under the null hypothesis of no spatial association amongst first-order neighbours. A rejection of the null hypothesis serves to argue against the SRS variance estimator.

    As suggested from the supplementary yet limited simulations with larger populations (without a trend) and lower sample fractions, the estimates of variance obtained with the five estimators will gradually converge as N increases and n/N decreases. This was expected since d is inverse proportional to n/N and the average autocorrelation typically declines with an increase in d.

    Several estimators of variance tailored to semisystematic sampling (Stevens and Olsen 2003; Magnussen and Nord-Larsen 2019), quasi-systematic sampling(Wilhelm et al. 2017), or designs with a spatial balance in auxiliary space (Grafstr?m et al. 2014) were beyond the scope of this study. Given the model-based nature of MAT, SDR, RIP, and DOR, we expect they will be of interest also for these variations on systematic sampling.

    We made no use of auxiliaries from remote sensing although they are omnipresent. As pointed out by Opsomer et al. (2012) and Fattorini et al. (2018a) “… for a model that fit the data well, any variance estimation method that targets the residual variability will perform satisfactorily regardless of the autocorrelation in the sample data”. In the forerunner to this study (Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019), we confirmed that the conservative nature of the SRS estimator of variance diminishes with the strength of the correlation between y and an auxiliary variable (x).

    All our results apply to finite populations considered as realizations of a superpopulation (Bartolucci and Montanari 2006). We could have employed the infinite population paradigm on the finite-area populations under study with the constraint of equality in size (area)of a population unit and a sample plot. We would, in theory, have an infinite number of possible samples for a fixed sample size, but if we excluded samples with edgeeffects and samples with overlapping plots - which violates the strong assumption of independent samples -we would generate results very similar to those presented.

    We recognize that an analyst, accustomed to application of the SRS estimator of variance to data obtained under a systematic sampling design, may not be swayed by results from simulations or simulated sampling from actual populations. Yet, to continue with the SRS without an attempt to gauge the need for an alternative is not best practice. With today’s powerful computers and readily available software for spatial analysis, it is not difficult to obtain statistics to guide an analyst towards a suitable estimator of variance. While issues of trend and heteroscedasticity may be addressed with a modelling,post-stratification (D'Orazio 2003; Westfall et al. 2011;Strand 2017; McConville and Toth 2017; Magnussen and Fehrmann 2019) or the one-per-stratum design proposed by Breidt et al. (2016), the issue of autocorrelation will persist across spatial scales.

    Conclusions

    The conservative nature of the SRS estimator of variance when applied to data collected under a systematic design was confirmed. The provision of conservative estimates of variance is counter-productive in an era where forest resource estimates are increasingly important in a number of policy issues where precise estimates are expected.Inflated estimates of variance may obscure opportunities for cost-savings from reduced sampling efforts that do not imperil targets set for precision. Additional computational complexities are encountered when switching from the SRS estimator to a better alternative, but they are not necessarily dissuasive.

    In populations with spatial autocorrelation,the four alternative estimators of variance generated estimates of variance that were much closer to the actual design variance than possible with the SRS estimator. In the populations with near zero spatial autocorrelation the four alternatives closely tracked the actual design variance.No single alternative estimator emerged as uniformly best in terms of bias. In terms of expected performance in populations without a trend, MAT was slightly better than SDR and DOR. In terms of the anticipated (single sample) performance, DOR and SDR emerge as less variable than MAT. In populations with a strong or a moderate global linear trend, we would recommend MAT.Nevertheless, in a large population and a low sampling intensity,the performances of the investigated estimators will be less distinct.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-020-00223-6.

    Acknowledgements

    Two anynomous reviewers made many constructive suggestions to improve our first submission.Their help and support are greatly appreciated.

    Authors’ contributions

    The first author conceptualized and executed the simulations, obtained and analyzed the results, and wrote a first draft of the manuscript. Subsequent authors (2 to 7) participated in discussions around study design, populations,estimators, and made improvements to the first draft of our manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

    Funding

    No external funding provided.

    Availability of data and materials

    The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable requests.

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Author details

    1506 West Burnside Road, Victoria, BC V8Z 1M5, Canada.2Raspberry Ridge Analytics, 15111 Elmcrest Avenue North, Hugo, MN 55038, USA.3Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, H?gskolevegen 8,1431 ?s, Norway.4Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.5Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ume?, Sweden.6Forest Inventory and Remote Sensing,Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of G?ttingen, Büsgenweg 5,D37077,G?ttingen, Germany.7Alfred-M?ller-Stra?e 1,Haus 41-42, 16225 Eberswalde,Germany.

    Received: 6 November 2019 Accepted: 26 February 2020

    久久久精品免费免费高清| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 精品酒店卫生间| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 午夜日本视频在线| 成人综合一区亚洲| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 在线观看免费高清a一片| av片东京热男人的天堂| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 在线天堂中文资源库| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 色哟哟·www| freevideosex欧美| 色94色欧美一区二区| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 婷婷色综合www| 久久久久视频综合| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 丝袜美足系列| 国产精品免费大片| 大香蕉久久成人网| 老司机影院毛片| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 免费观看性生交大片5| 久久这里只有精品19| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 成人综合一区亚洲| 免费看av在线观看网站| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 一级片'在线观看视频| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 捣出白浆h1v1| 精品亚洲成国产av| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 有码 亚洲区| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 在线观看www视频免费| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 久久精品夜色国产| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 国产精品免费大片| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | 日日啪夜夜爽| 国产 精品1| 国产综合精华液| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产永久视频网站| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 美女中出高潮动态图| 久热久热在线精品观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 9色porny在线观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 热re99久久国产66热| 看免费av毛片| 一级片'在线观看视频| av卡一久久| 亚洲精品视频女| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产1区2区3区精品| 一区二区av电影网| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 两性夫妻黄色片 | 99国产精品免费福利视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 精品第一国产精品| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 熟女电影av网| 一级爰片在线观看| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 久久热在线av| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 亚洲性久久影院| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 亚洲图色成人| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| av卡一久久| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 国产成人精品一,二区| 香蕉精品网在线| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 久久久久久久精品精品| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲国产av新网站| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 美国免费a级毛片| 9色porny在线观看| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 黄色一级大片看看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 黄色 视频免费看| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 只有这里有精品99| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 一级爰片在线观看| av黄色大香蕉| 如何舔出高潮| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 婷婷色综合www| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产极品天堂在线| 日本黄大片高清| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 精品酒店卫生间| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 咕卡用的链子| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 观看美女的网站| 国产视频首页在线观看| 一级片'在线观看视频| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 中国国产av一级| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| a级毛色黄片| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 999精品在线视频| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 丝袜喷水一区| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 男女边摸边吃奶| 美女主播在线视频| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产成人欧美| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 日韩成人伦理影院| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 777米奇影视久久| 人人澡人人妻人| av不卡在线播放| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 91成人精品电影| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 一级片免费观看大全| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 一级毛片电影观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 在线观看www视频免费| tube8黄色片| 国产毛片在线视频| 中文天堂在线官网| 91国产中文字幕| 久久久久视频综合| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲第一av免费看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 中文天堂在线官网| 精品一区二区免费观看| 免费观看性生交大片5| 午夜激情av网站| 老女人水多毛片| 少妇高潮的动态图| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 日日撸夜夜添| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产片内射在线| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 高清不卡的av网站| 国产乱来视频区| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 老女人水多毛片| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| av一本久久久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 久久婷婷青草| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| www.色视频.com| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 秋霞伦理黄片| 久久精品国产综合久久久 | 大码成人一级视频| 五月开心婷婷网| kizo精华| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| av一本久久久久| 免费观看性生交大片5| 久久 成人 亚洲| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 久久久精品94久久精品| 99久久综合免费| 亚洲成人手机| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 久热久热在线精品观看| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 国产1区2区3区精品| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲av福利一区| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 午夜av观看不卡| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 丝袜喷水一区| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 精品一区二区三卡| 欧美+日韩+精品| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 日本与韩国留学比较| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 777米奇影视久久| 久久青草综合色| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 黄色一级大片看看| 午夜福利,免费看| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 成人影院久久| 精品国产国语对白av| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 午夜福利,免费看| 一级片免费观看大全| www.熟女人妻精品国产 | 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 婷婷色综合www| 精品一区二区三卡| 五月开心婷婷网| 成人国产av品久久久| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 在线观看www视频免费| 丝袜喷水一区| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 精品一区二区免费观看| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产一级毛片在线| 18禁观看日本| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 精品酒店卫生间| 在现免费观看毛片| av在线老鸭窝| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 国产1区2区3区精品| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 免费人成在线观看视频色| videosex国产| 日本av免费视频播放| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 一级片免费观看大全| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 久久热在线av| 高清毛片免费看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 国产片内射在线| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 少妇人妻 视频| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩电影二区| 91国产中文字幕| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 色哟哟·www| 9191精品国产免费久久| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| av在线老鸭窝| 999精品在线视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 国产综合精华液| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 免费观看在线日韩| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 黄片播放在线免费| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 黄色 视频免费看| 香蕉丝袜av| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产成人aa在线观看| 日本欧美视频一区| 九九在线视频观看精品| 久久久国产一区二区| 久久久久精品性色| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 久热久热在线精品观看| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 永久免费av网站大全| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 国产 精品1| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 视频区图区小说| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 久热久热在线精品观看| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 99香蕉大伊视频| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 国产精品无大码| 夫妻午夜视频| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 在线观看国产h片| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 九草在线视频观看| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 韩国精品一区二区三区 | 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | av在线播放精品| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产成人精品无人区| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲图色成人| 香蕉丝袜av| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 久久久久久人人人人人| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 国产亚洲最大av| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 日韩电影二区| 亚洲第一av免费看| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产片内射在线| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产精品 国内视频| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 岛国毛片在线播放| av播播在线观看一区| 搡老乐熟女国产| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 熟女电影av网| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 99香蕉大伊视频| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 永久免费av网站大全| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 老司机影院毛片| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 日韩成人伦理影院| 超色免费av| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 人妻系列 视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 美女国产视频在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 91精品三级在线观看| 国产亚洲最大av| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 亚洲综合色惰| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 婷婷色综合www| 秋霞伦理黄片| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 多毛熟女@视频| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 中文天堂在线官网| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲国产看品久久| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 99热6这里只有精品| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| a级毛色黄片| 插逼视频在线观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 看十八女毛片水多多多| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 日本黄大片高清| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 制服诱惑二区| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 成人二区视频| 免费观看在线日韩| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 国产又爽黄色视频| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 中国国产av一级| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 男女午夜视频在线观看 | 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 免费大片18禁| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲图色成人| 午夜日本视频在线| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产成人一区二区在线| 大码成人一级视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| av视频免费观看在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频|