Linking climate, gross primary productivity, and site index across forests of the western United States

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1710-1721

  Weiskittel, Aaron R ^a   Crookston, Nicholas L ^b   Radtke, Philip J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^b ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS; CLIMATE VARIABLES; DEVELOPED MODEL; EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT; EXPECTED EFFECTS; FOREST PRODUCTIVITY; GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTION; GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY; GROWTH MODELS; NON-PARAMETRIC MODEL; POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY; PREDICTOR VARIABLES; SITE INDEX; WESTERN UNITED STATES;

CLIMATE MODELS; FORECASTING; NASA; PRODUCTIVITY;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE EFFECT; ESTIMATION METHOD; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; GROWTH MODELING; GROWTH RATE; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; MODIS; NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION; REMOTE SENSING; SITE INDEX;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 80051764844     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: 12086037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/x11-086     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aertsen, W., Kint, V., van Orshoven, J., Özkan, K., and Muys, B. 2010. Comparison and ranking of different modelling techniques for prediction of site index in Mediterranean mountain forests. Ecol. Model. 221(8): 1119-1130. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.01.007.
2. Baldwin, V.C., Burkhart, H.E., Westfall, J.A., and Peterson, K.D. 2001. Linking growth and yield and process models to estimate impact of environmental changes on growth of loblolly pine. For. Sci. 47: 77-82.
3. Bravo-Oviedo, A., Gallardo-Andrés, C., del Río, M., and Montero, G. 2010. Regional changes of Pinus pinaster site index in Spain using a climate-based dominant height model. Can. J. For. Res. 40(10): 2036-2048. doi:10.1139/X10-143.
4. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1): 5-32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324.
5. Carmean, W.H. 1975. Forest site quality evaluation in the United States. Adv. Agron. 27: 209-269. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)70011-7.
6. Coops, N.C., Hember, R.A., and Waring, R.H. 2010. Assessing the impact of current and projected climates on Douglas-fir productivity in British Columbia, Canada, using a process-based model (3-PG). Can. J. For. Res. 40(3): 511-524. doi:10.1139/X09-201.
7. Coops, N.C., Gaulton, R., and Waring, R.H. 2011. Mapping site indices for five Pacific Northwest conifers using a physiologically based model. Appl. Veg. Sci. 14(2): 268-276. doi:10.1111/j.1654-109X.2010.01109.x.
8. Coulston, J.W., Riitters, K.H., McRoberts, R.E., Reams, G.A., and Smith, W.D. 2006. True versus perturbed forest inventory plot locations for modeling: a simulation study. Can. J. For. Res. 36(3): 801-807. doi:10.1139/x05-265.
9. Crookston, N.L., Rehfeldt, G.E., Dixon, G.E., and Weiskittel, A.R. 2010. Addressing climate change in the Forest Vegetation Simulator to assess impacts on landscape forest dynamics. For. Ecol.Manage. 260(7): 1198-1211. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.013.
10. Goelz, J.C.G., and Burk, T.E. 1996. Measurement error causes bias in site index equations. Can. J. For. Res. 26(9): 1585-1593. doi:10.1139/x26-178.
11. Gower, S.T., Kucharik, C.J., and Norman, J.M. 1999. Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 70(1): 29-51. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00056-5.
12. Hanson, E.J., Azuma, D.L., and Hiserote, B.A. 2002. Site index equations and mean annual increment equations for Pacific Northwest Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis Inventories, 1985-2001. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-RN-533.
13. Heinsch, F.A., Reeves, M., Votava, P., Kang, S., Milesi, C., Zhao, M., Glassy, J., Jolly, W.M., Loehman, R., Bowker, C.F., Kimball, J.S., Nemani, R.R., and Running, S.W. 2003. User's guide GPP and NPP (MOD17A2/A3) products NASA MODIS land algorithm, version 2.0. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, Mt.
14. Henning, J.G., and Burk, T.E. 2004. Improving growth and yield estimtes with a process model derived growth index. Can. J. For. Res. 34(6): 1274-1282. doi:10.1139/x04-021.
15. Keenan, T., Serra, J.M., Lloret, F., Ninyerola, M., and Sabate, S. 2011. Predicting the future of forests in the Mediterranean under climate change, with niche- and process-based models: CO2 matters! Glob. Change Biol. 17(1): 565-579. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02254.x.
16. Landsberg, J.J., andWaring, R.H. 1997. A generalized model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For. Ecol. Manage. 95(3): 209-228. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00026-1.
17. Landsberg, J.J., Waring, R.H., and Coops, N.C. 2003. Performance of forest productivity model 3-PG applied to a wide range of forest types. For. Ecol. Manage. 172(2-3): 199-214. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00804-0.
18. Latta, G., Temesgen, H., and Barrett, T.M. 2009. Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Pacific Northwest forests using climate variables. Can. J. For. Res. 39(6): 1197-1207. doi:10.1139/X09-046.
19. Latta, G., Temesgen, H., Adams, D., and Barrett, T. 2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. For. Ecol. Manage. 259(4): 720-729. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.003.
20. Liaw, A., and Wiener, M. 2002. Classification and regression by random Forest. R News, 2: 18-22.
21. Mäkelä, A., Landsberg, J., Ek, A.R., Burk, T.E., Ter-Mikaelian, M., Agren, G.I., Oliver, C.D., and Puttonen, P. 2000. Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of the art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol. 20(5-6): 289-298. PMID:12651445.
22. McLeod, S.D., and Running, S.W. 1988. Comparing site quality indices and productivity in ponderosa pine stands of western Montana. Can. J. For. Res. 18(3): 346-352. doi:10.1139/x88-052.
23. Monserud, R.A. 1984. Height growth and site index curves for inland Douglas-fir based on stem analysis data and forest habitat type. For. Sci.30(4): 943-965.
24. Monserud, R.A. 1988. Variations on a theme of site index. In Forest Growth Modelling and Prediction. Proceedings of IUFRO Conference. No. 1, 23-27 August 1987, Minneapolis, Minn. Edited by A.R. Ek, S.R. Shifley, and T.E. Burk. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-120. pp. 419-427.
25. Monserud, R.A., and Rehfeldt, G.E. 1990. Genetic and environmental components of variation of site index in inland Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 36: 1-9.
26. Monserud, R.A., Moody, U., and Breuer, D.W. 1990. A soil-site study for inland Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 20(6): 686-695. doi:10.1139/x90-092.
27. Monserud, R.A., Huang, S.M., and Yang, Y.Q. 2006. Predicting lodgepole pine site index from climatic parameters in Alberta. For. Chron. 82(4): 562-571.
28. Monserud, R.A., Yang, Y., Huang, S., and Tchebakova, N. 2008. Potential change in lodgepole pine site index and distribution under climatic change in Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 38(2): 343-352. doi:10.1139/X07-166.
29. Nakicenovic, N., and Swart, R.E. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
30. Nigh, G.D., and Love, B.A. 1999. How well can we select undamaged site trees for estimating site index? Can. J. For. Res. 29(12): 1989-1992. doi:10.1139/x99-163.
31. Nightingale, J.M., Coops, N.C., Waring, R.H., and Hargove, W.W. 2007. Comparison of MODIS gross primary production estimates for forests across the U.S.A. with those generated by a simple process model, 3-PGS. Remote Sens. Environ. 109(4): 500-509. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.02.004.
32. Parkhurst, D.F. 2001. Statistical significance tests: equivalence and reverse tests should reduce misinterpretation. Bioscience, 51(12): 1051-1057. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1051:SSTEAR]2.0.CO;2.
33. Prisley, S.P., Wang, H.J., and Radtke, P.J. 2009. Combining FIA plot data with topographic variables: are precise locations needed? In Proceedings of the 2008 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Symposium. Edited by W. McWilliams, G. Moisen, and R. Czaplewski. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Park City, Utah.
34. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
35. Rehfeldt, G.E. 2006. A spline model of climate for the Western United States. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RMRS-165.
36. Rehfeldt, G.E., Crookston, N.L., Warwell, M.V., and Evans, J.S. 2006. Empirical analysis of plant-climate relationships for the western United States. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167(6): 1123-1150. doi:10.1086/507711.
37. Reich, P.B., and Bolstad, P. 2001. Productivity of evergreen and deciduous temperate forests. In Terrestrial global productivity. Edited by J. Roy, B. Saugier, and H.A. Mooney. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif. pp. 245-283.
38. Robinson, A.P., and Froese, R.E. 2004. Model validation using equivalence tests. Ecol. Model. 176(3-4): 349-358. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.01.013.
39. Rodriguez, R., Real, P., Espinosa, M., and Perry, D.A. 2009. A process-based model to evaluate site quality for Eucalyptus nitens in the Bio-Bio Region of Chile. Forestry, 82(2): 149-162. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn045.
40. Running, S.W., Baldocchi, D.D., Turner, D.P., Gower, S.T., Bakwin, P.S., and Hibbard, K.A. 1999. A global terrestrial monitoring network integrating tower fluxes, flask sampling, ecosystem modeling and EOS satellite data. Remote Sens. Environ. 70(1): 108-127. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00061-9.
41. Running, S.W., Nemani, R.R., Heinsch, F.A., Zhao, M.S., Reeves, M., and Hashimoto, H. 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience, 54(6): 547-560. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2.
42. Schmoldt, D.L., Martin, G.L., and Bockheim, J.G. 1985. Yield-based measures of northern hardwood site quality and their correlation with soil-site factors. For. Sci. 31: 209-219.
43. Schwalm, C.R., and Ek, A.R. 2001. Climate change and site: relevant mechanisms and modeling techniques. For. Ecol. Manage. 150(3): 241-257. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00568-5.
44. Skovsgaard, J.P., and Vanclay, J.K. 2008. Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry, 81(1): 13-31. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpm041.
45. Swenson, J.J., Waring, R.H., Fan, W.H., and Coops, N. 2005. Predicting site index with a physiologically based growth model across Oregon, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 35(7): 1697-1707. doi:10.1139/x05-089.
46. Thorton, P.E., Running, S.W., and White, M.A. 1997. Generating surfaces of daily meteorology variables over large regions of complex terrain. J. Hydrol. (Amst.), 190(3-4): 214-251. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03128-9.
47. Waring, R.H., Gholz, H.L., Grier, C.C., and Plummer, M.L. 1978. Variation in maximum leaf area of coniferous forests in Oregon and its ecological significance. For. Sci. 24: 131-140.
48. Waring, R.H., Milner, K.S., Jolly, W.M., Phillips, L., and McWethy, D. 2006. Assessment of site index and forest growth capacity across the Pacific and Inland Northwest U.S.A. with a MODIS satellite-derived vegetation index. For. Ecol. Manage. 228(1-3): 285-291. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.019.
49. Way, D.A., and Oren, R. 2010. Differential responses to changes in growth temperature between trees from different functional groups and biomes: a review and synthesis of data. Tree Physiol. 30(6): 669-688. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpq015. PMID:20368338.
50. Zhao, M.S., Heinsch, F.A., Nemani, R.R., and Running, S.W. 2005. Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sens. Environ. 95(2): 164-176. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.12.011.