Harmonizing national forest inventories

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 107, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 179-187

  McRoberts, Ronald E ^a   Tomppo, Erkki ^b   Schadauer, Klemens ^c   Vidal, Claude ^d   Ståhl, Göran ^e   Chirici, Gherardo ^f   Lanz, Adrian ^g   Cienciala, Emil ^h   Winter, Susanne ⁱ   Smith, W Brad ^a  

^a USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

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

^d French National Forest Inventory   (France)

^e SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MOLISE   (Italy)

^g SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

^h Ustav pro vyzkum lesnich ekosystemu sro   (Czech Republic)

ⁱ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Carbon; COST Action E43; Definitions; European Union; Forest biodiversity; North American Forest Commission

Indexed keywords

CARBON POOL; DEFINITIONS; ESTIMATION PROCEDURES; EUROPEAN PROGRAM; EUROPEAN UNION; FOREST BIODIVERSITY; FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS; FOREST RESOURCES; MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL; NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORIES; NORTH AMERICAN FOREST COMMISSION; PRIMARY SOURCES; SAMPLING DESIGN; TECHNICAL RESEARCH; US FOREST SERVICE;

BIODIVERSITY; COSTS; FORESTRY; MARKUP LANGUAGES; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EUROPEAN UNION; FOREST INVENTORY; NOMENCLATURE; STANDARD (REFERENCE); SUSTAINABILITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CARBON; COSTS; FORESTRY; INVENTORIES; LANGUAGES;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 69849105679     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. AMICHEV, B.Y., AND J.M. GALBRAITH. 2004. A revised methodology for estimation of forest soil carbon from spatial soils and forest inventory data sets. Environ. Manag. 33(suppl. 1): S74-S86.
2. BAILEY, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States (map). US For. Serv., Ogden, UT.
3. CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS. 2006. Canada's National Forest Inventory.Available at online www.nfi.nfis.org/index_e.shtml; last accessed December 2008.
4. CIENCIALA, E., E. TOMPPO, A. SNORRASON, M. BROADMEADOW, A. COLIN, K. DUNGER, Z. EX- NEROVA, B. LASSERRE, H. PETERSSON, T. PRIWITZER, G.S. PEÑA, AND G.STÅHL 2008. Preparing emission reporting systems from forests: use of national forest inventories in European countries. Silva Fennica 42:73-88. Available online at www.metla.fi/silvafennica/ sfquart.htm; last accessed June 2008.
5. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD). 2007. Article 7, Identification and monitoring. Available online at www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml; last accessed April 2008.
6. COST. 2008. European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research. Available at online at www.cost.esf.org/; last accessed May 2008.
7. COST E43. 2008. Harmonisation of national forest inventories in Europe: Techniques for com mon reporting. Available at online at www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/index.html; last accessed May 2008.
8. EGGELSTON, S., L. BUENDIA, K. MIWA, T. NGARA, AND K. TANABE (EDS.). 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. Available online at www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm; last accessed May 2008.
9. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2005. Global resources assessment 2005. Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO For. Pap. 147, Rome. 323 p. Available online at www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0400e/a0400e00. htm; last accessed May 2008.
10. GILLIS, M., B. SMITH, A. SANDOVAL, H. HIRVONEN, AND B. HADDON. 2004. North America regional assessment of forest resources. Unpub. Rep. to the XXII Session of the North Ameri-can Forest Commission. 20 p.
11. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC). 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land use change, and forestry, Penman, J., D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S. Emmanuel, L. Buendia, R. Hop-paus, T. Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa, and K. Tanabe (eds.). IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan. Available online at www. ipc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.htm; last accessed April 2008.
12. JENKINS, J.C., D.C. CHOJNACKY, L.S. HEATH, AND R.A. BIRDSEY. 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For. Sci. 49(1):12-35.
13. KÖHL, M., B. TRAUB, AND R. PÄIVINEN. Harmonisation and standardization in multinational environmental statistics-Mission impossible? Environ. Monit. Assess. 63:361-380, 2000.
14. KYOTO PROTOCOL. 1997. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available online at www.law-ref.org/KYOTO/index.html; last accessed May 2008.
15. MCROBERTS, R.E., W.A. BECHTOLD, P.L. PATTERSON, C.T. SCOTT, AND G.A. REAMS. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program of the USDA Forest Service; historical perspective and statistical documentation. J. For. 103(6):304-308.
16. MCROBERTS, R.E., S. WINTER, G. CHIRICI, E. HAUK, D.R. PELZ, W.K. MOSER, AND M.A. HATFIELD. 2008. Large-scale spatial patterns of forest structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 38: 429-438.
17. MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN EUROPE (MCPFE). 2003. State of Europe's forests. The MCPFE Rep. on Sustainable forest management in Europe. 2003. Ministerial Convention on Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit, Vienna, Austria. 114 p.
18. MONTREAL PROCESS. 2005. The Montreal Process. Available online at www.rinya.maff.go.jp/ mpci/; last accessed April 2008.
19. SHANNON, C.E. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. P. 29-115 in The mathematical theory of communication, Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W. (eds.). University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
20. SMITH, J.E., AND L.S. HEATH. 2002. A model forest floor carbon mass for United States forest types. Res. Pap. NE-722, US For. Serv., Northeastern Res. Stn., Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 37 p.
21. SMITH, J.E., L.S. HEATH, AND JENKINS, J.C.2003. Forest volume-to-biomass models and estimates of mass for live and standing dead trees of the U.S. Forests. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-NE-298, Northeastern Res. Stn., New-town Square, Pennsylvania. 57 p.
22. SMITH, J.E., L.S. HEATH, AND P.B. WOODBURY. 2004. How to estimate forest carbon for large areas from inventory data. J. For. 102(5):25-31.
23. STAGE, A.R. 1969. A growth definition for stocking: units, sampling, and interpretation. For. Sci. 15:255-265.
24. STAUDHAMMER, C.L., AND V.M. LEMAY. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 31:1105-1115.
25. UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EU- ROPE (UNECE) AND FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2000. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). UNECE/FAO contribution to the GlobalForestResourcesAssessment2000,Main Rep.,GenevaTimberandForestStudyPap.,17, United Nations. 445 p.
26. UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 1992. United Nations framework convention on climate change. FCCC/INFORMAL-MAL/84-GE.05-62220 (E) 200705. Available online at www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf; last accessed April 2008.
27. UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 2002. Report of the conference of the parties on the seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001.Available online at www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a02.pdf; last accessed April 2008.
28. VIDAL, C., A. LANZ, E. TOMPPO, K. SCHADAUER, T. GSCHWANTNER, L. DI COSMO, AND N. ROBERT. 2008. Establishing forest inventory reference definitions for forest and growing stock: A study towards common reporting. Silva Fennica 42:247-266.Available online at www.metla.fi/silvafennica/sfquart.htm; last accessed June 2008.
29. WINTER, S., G. CHIRICI, R.E. MCROBERTS, E. HAUK, AND E. TOMPPO, E. 2008. Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry 81:33-44.
30. WOODALL, C.W., L.S. HEATH, AND J.E. SMITH. 2008. National inventories of down and dead woody material forest carbons tocks in the United States: Challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 256(3):221-228.