Large-scale spatial patterns of forest structural diversity

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 429-438

  McRoberts, Ronald E ^a   Winter, Susanne ^b   Chirici, Gherardo ^c   Hauk, Elmar ^d   Pelz, Dieter R ^e   Moser, W Keith ^a   Hatfield, Mark A ^a  

^a USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MOLISE   (Italy)

^d FEDERAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTRE FOR FORESTS   (Austria)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; DATA REDUCTION; ECOLOGY;

FOREST STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY; SPATIAL PATTERNS;

FORESTRY;

FOREST INVENTORY; SPATIAL VARIATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY; STAND STRUCTURE;

ECOLOGY; FORESTS; TREES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 41449091840     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X07-154     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States (map). USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
2. Bailey, R.G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ. Manage. 7: 365-373. doi:10.1007/BF01866919.
3. Bechtold, W.A., and Patterson, P.L. (Editors). 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program - national sampling design and estimation procedures. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80.
4. Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Lu, H.C., and Lin, C.R. 1994. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. For. Sci. 40: 83-103.
5. Burley, J. 2002. Forest biological diversity: an overview. Unasylva, 53: 3-9.
6. Chen, H.Y.H., Klinka, K., Mathey, A.-H., Wang, X., Varga, P., and Chourmouzis, C. 2003. Are mixed-species stands more productive than single-species stands: an empirical test of three forest types in British Columbia and Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1227-1237. doi:10.1139/x03-048.
7. Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technology (COST). 2006. Harmonisation of national forest inventories in Europe: techniques for common reporting. COST Action E43. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland. Available from www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/index.html. [Accessed 25 November 2006.]
8. Cressie, N. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Wiley Interscience, New York.
9. Edgar, C.B., and Burk, T.E. 2001. Productivity of aspen forests in northeastern Minnesota, U.S.A., as related to stand composition and canopy structure. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1019-1029. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-6-1019.
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2002. Proceedings of the Expert Meeting on Harmonization of Forest-related Definitions for use by Various Stakeholders, 22-25 January 2002, Rome, Italy. FAO, Rome. Available from www.fao.org/clim/docs/44_fodef.pdf. [Accessed: June 2007.]
11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. Global forest resources assessment, progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO, Rome. FAO For. Pap. 147.
12. Fortin, M.J. 1999. Spatial statistics in landscape ecology. In Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Edited by J.M. Klopatek and R.H. Cardner. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 253-279.
13. Gaston, K.J. 1996. What is biodiversity? In Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Edited by K.J. Gaston. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. pp. 1-9.
14. Gaston, K.J., and Spicer, I.J. 1998. Biodiversity: an introduction. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.
15. Geology.com. 2007. Minnesota state map collection; Wisconsin state map collection; Michigan state map collection. Geology.com, Farmington, N.M. Available from www.geology.com. [Accessed June 2007.]
16. Global Forest Watch (GFW). 2006. Frequently asked questions. Global Forest Watch, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Available from www.globalforestwatch/english/about/faqs.htm. [Accessed 08 January 2007.]
17. Kant, S. 2002. The marginal cost of structural diversity of mixed uneven-aged hard maple forests. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 616-628. doi:10.1139/x02-001.
18. Kapos, V., and Iremonger, S.F. 1998. Achieving global and regional perspectives on forest biodiversity and conservation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning, 7-11 Oct. 1996, Monte Verità, Switzerland. Edited by P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, and R. Paivinen. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. EFI Proc. 18. pp. 3-14.
19. Kuuluvainen, T., Penttinen, A., Leinonen, K., and Nygren, M.. 1996. Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: an example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fenn. 30: 315-328.
20. Kuuluvainen, T., Järvinen, E., Hokkanen, T.J., Rouvinen, S., and Heikkinen, K. 1998. Structural heterogeneity and spatial autocorrelation in a natural Pinus sylvestris dominated forest. Ecography, 21: 159-174. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00670.x.
21. Lähde, E., Laiho, O., Norokorpi, Y., and Saksa, T. 1999. Stand structure as the basis of diversity index. For. Ecol. Manage. 115: 213-220. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00400-9.
22. Lévêque, C. 1994. Environnement et diversité du vivant. Collection Explora. Pocket Sciences/Cité des sciences, Paris.
23. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
24. Matthews, E., Payne, R., Rohweder, M., and Siobahn, M. 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: forest ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
25. McRoberts, R.E., Bechtold, W.A., Patterson, P.L., Scott, C.T., and Reams, G.A. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program of the USDA Forest Service: historical perspective and announcement of statistical documentation. J. For. 103: 304-308.
26. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2002. Improved pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management. MCPFE Liaison Unit, Vienna. Available from www.mcpfe.org. [Accessed December 2006.]
27. Montréal Process. 2006. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Montréal Process Liaison Office, International Forestry Cooperation Office, Forestry Agency, Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan. Available from www.mpci.org/rep-pub/1995/santiago_e. html. [Accessed December 2006.]
28. Murtaugh, P.A., and Birkes, D.S. 2006. An empirical method for inferring species richness from samples. Environmetrics, 17: 129-138. doi:10.1002/env.755.
29. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1974. Climates of the states. Vols. 1 and 2. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, N.Y.
30. Nekola, J.C., and White, P.S. 1999. The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J. Biogeogr. 26: 867-878. doi:10.1046/j.1365- 2699.1999.00305.x.
31. Neumann, M., and Starlinger, F. 2001. The significance of different indices for stand structure and diversity in forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 145: 91-106. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00577-6.
32. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4: 355-364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990. tb00309.x.
33. Ohmann, L.F., Grigal, D.F., and Brovold, S. 1989. Characterization of 171 study plots across a Lakes States acidic deposition gradient. USDA For. Serv. North Central Exp. Stn. Resour. Bull. NC-110.
34. Önal, H. 1997. Trade-off between structural diversity and economic objectives in forest management. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79: 1001-1012. doi:10.2307/1244439.
35. Pommerening, A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structure. Forestry, 75: 305-324. doi:10.1093/forestry/75.3.305.
36. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27: 379-423, 623-656.
37. Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., Kelty, M.J., Mark, P., and Ashton, S. 1997. The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
38. Smith, E.P., and van Belle, G. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics, 40: 119-129. doi:10.2307/2530750.
39. Society of American Foresters (SAF). 1991. Biological diversity in forest ecosystems: a position of the Society of American Foresters. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Md. SAF Publ. 91-03. ISBN O-939970-45-7. www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/Biologicaldiversity.cfm. [Accessed December 2006.]
40. Staudhammer, C.L., and LeMay, V.M. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1105-1115. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-7-1105.
41. Sterba, H., and Monserud, R.A. 1995. Potential volume yield for mixed-species Douglas-fir stands in the northern Rocky Mountains. For. Sci. 41: 531-545.
42. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station (NRS). 2006. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide. Vol. I. Field collection procedures for phase 2 plots. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Missoula, Mont.
43. Varga, P., Chen, H.Y.H., and Klinka, K. 2005. Tree-size diversity between single- and mixed-species stands in three forest types in western Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 593-601. doi:10.1139/x04-193.
44. Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 21: 213-251. doi:10.2307/1218190.
45. Winter, S. 2005. Ermittlung von Struktur-Indikatoren zur Abschätzung des Einflusses forslicher Bewirtschaftung auf die Biozöonosen von Tiefland-Buchenwäldern. Dissertation, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. Publ. 322 S.