Scaling issues and constraints in modelling of forest ecosystems: A review with special focus on user needs

Baltic Forestry

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 316-330

  Eastaugh, Christopher Stuart ^a,b   Kangur, Ahto ^c   Korjus, Henn ^c   Kiviste, Andres ^c   Zlatanov, Tzvetan ^d   Velichkov, Ivaylo ^d   Srdjevic, Bojan ^e   Srdjevic, Zorica ^e   Hasenauer, Hubert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

^b SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Estonia)

^d FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Bulgaria)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD   (Serbia)

Author keywords

End user; Forest modelling; Scaling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898446087     PISSN: 13921355     EISSN: 20299230     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Andreassen, K., Solberg, S., Tveito, O. E. and Lystad, S. L. 2006. Regional differences in climatic responses of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Norway. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 211-221.
2. Bosch, J. and Gadow, K. v. 1990. Regulating Afforestation for Water Conservation in South Africa. South African Forestry Journal 153: 41-54.
3. Botkin, D. B. 1993. Forest dynamics: an ecological model. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F. and Wallis, J. R. 1972. Some Ecological Consequences of a Computer Model of Forest Growth. Journal of Ecology 60: 849-872.
5. Bugmann, H. 2001. A review of forest gap models. Climatic Change 51: 259-305.
6. Cao, Q. V. and Baldwin Jr., V. C. 1999. A new algorithm for stand table projection models. Forest Science 45: 506511.
7. Catchment Hydrology CRC. 2005. Series on model choice: 1: General approaches to modelling and practical issues of model choice. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Online at http://www. toolkit. net. au/tools/modelchoice/mc-1. pdf Accessed 02 May 2013.
8. Chave, J. 2013. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? Ecology Letters doi: 10. 1111/ele. 12048.
9. Chow, D. H. C. and Levermore, G. J. 2007. New algorithm for generating hourly temperature values using daily maximum, minimum and average values from climate models. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 28: 237-248.
10. Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H. M. and Redman, C. L. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1): 14.
11. Eastaugh, C. S, Petritsch, R. and Hasenauer, H. 2010. Climate characteristics across the Austrian forest estate from 1960 to 2008. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 127: 133-146.
12. Eastaugh, C. S., Pötzelsberger, E. and Hasenauer, H. 2011. Assessing the impacts of climate change and nitrogen deposition on Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Austria with BIOME-BGC. Tree Physiology 31(3): 262-274.
13. Gadow, K. v. 1996. Modelling growth in managed forests-Realism and limits of lumping. Science of the Total Environment 183:. 167-177.
14. Gadow, K. v. 2000. Evaluating risk in forest planning models. Silva Fennica 34: 181-191.
15. González, J. R., Palahí, M., Trasobares, A. and Pukkala, T. 2006. A fire probability model for forest stands in Catalonia (north-east Spain). Annals of Forest Science 63 169-176.
16. Green, C. A. 2002. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of a data-mining discipline. Journal of Economic Methodology 7, 217-230.
17. Hasenauer, H. 2005. Sustainable Forest Management: Growth models for Europe. Springer, Berlin.
18. Hasenauer, H., Burgmann, M. and Lexer, M. J. 2000. Konzepte der Waldökosystemmodellierung. [Concepts in forest ecosystem modelling]. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 117: 137-164, (in German).
19. Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J. R. and Loucks, D. P. 1982. Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation. Water Resources Research 18: 14-20.
20. Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Feehan, J., Miller, P. A., Smith, B., Costa, L., Giesecke, T., Fronzek, S., Carter, T. R., Cramer, W., Kühn, I. and Sykes, M. T. 2012. Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 50-63.
21. Hobbs, N. T. 2003. Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 223-238.
22. Hynynen, J., Ahtikoski, A., Siitonen, J., Sievänen, R. and Liski, J. 2005. Applying the MOTTI simulator to analyse the effects of alternative management schedules on timber and non-timber production. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 5-18.
23. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Kangur, A., Korjus, H., Jõgiste, K. and Kiviste, A. 2005. A conceptual model of forest stand development based on permanent sample-plot data in Estonia. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement 20: 94-101.
25. Kangur, A., Sims, A., Jõgiste, K., Kiviste, A., Korjus, H. and Gadow, K. v. 2007. Comparative modeling of stand development in Scots pine dominated forests in Estonia. Forest Ecology and Management 250: 109-118.
26. Kimmins, J. P. 1987. Forest ecology: models and the role in ecology and resource management. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
27. Kouba, J. 1989. Control of the conversion process towards the stochastically defined normal forest by the linear and stochastic programming. Lesnictvi 35: 1025-1040.
28. Laarmann, D., Korjus, H., Sims, A., Stanturf, J. A., Kiviste, A. and Köster, K. 2009. Analysis of forest naturalness and tree mortality patterns in Estonia. Forest Ecology and Management 258: S187-S195.
29. Labadie, J. 2005. MODSIM: River basin management decision support system. In: Singh, V. and Frevert, D. (Editors) Watershed Models, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
30. Landsberg, J. J., Kaufmann, M. R., Binkley, D., Isebrands, J. and Jarvis, P. G. 1991. Evaluating progress towards closed forest models based on fluxes of carbon, water and nutrients. Tree Physiology 9: 1-15.
31. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
32. Lexer, M. J. and Hönninger, K. 2001. A modified 3D-patch model for spatially explicit simulation of vegetation composition in heterogeneous landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 144: 43-65.
33. Mackey, B. G., Keith, H., Berry, S. L. and Lindenmayer, D. B. 2008. Green carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press, Canberra, 48pp.
34. Mihov, I. 2000. Forest mensuration. PIK Litera, Sophia.
35. Monserud R. A. and Sterba, H. 1996. A basal area increment model of individual trees growing in even-and uneven-aged forest stands in Austria. Forest Ecology and Management 80(1-3): 57-80.
36. Murray, D. M. and Gadow, K. v. 1991. Prioritizing mountain catchment areas. Journal of Environmental Management 32: 357-366.
37. Nagel, J. 1999. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zum schrittweis-en Aufbau eines waldwachstumskundlichen Simulations-systtems für NW Deutschland [Conceptual types of forest growth models for NW Germany]. J. D. Sauerländerūs Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, (in German).
38. Nagel, J., Albert, M. U., Schmidt, M. 2002. Das waldbauli-che Prognose-und Entscheidungsmodell BWINPro 6. 1. [The silvicultural prediction and decision model BWIN-Pro 6. 1]. Forst und Holz 57: 486-493, (in German).
39. Newnham, R. M. 1964. The development of a stand model for Douglas-fir. Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver.
40. Pacala, S. W., Canham, C. D., Saponara, J., Silander Jr., J. A., Kobe, R. K. and Ribbens, E. 1996. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecological Monographs 66: 1-43.
41. Paulsen, J. C. 1976. Praktische Anweisung zum Forstwesen [Practical instruction in forestry]. Detmold, (in German).
42. Petritsch, R. and Hasenauer, H. 2007. Interpolating input parameters for large scale ecosystem models. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 124: 135-151.
43. Pietsch, S. A. and Hasenauer, H. 2002. Using mechanistic modeling within forest ecosystem restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 159, 111-131.
44. Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., Dursky, J., Gadow, K. v., Hasenauer, H., Kändler, G., Kenk, G., Kublin, E., Nagel, J., Pukkala, T., Skovsgaard, J. P., Sodtke, R. and Ster-ba, H. 2006. Standardizing and categorizing tree growth models. In: H. Hasenauer (Editor), Sustainable Forest Management. Growth Models for Europe. Springer, Berlin, p. 39-57.
45. Roesch, F. A. and Van Deusen, P. C. 2010. Anomalous diameter distribution shifts estimated from FIA inventories through time. Forestry 83: 269-276.
46. Running, S. W. and Hunt, J. E. R. 1993. Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an applicationfor global-scale models. In: J. R. Ehleringer and C. Field (Editors), Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p. 141-158.
47. Schmitd, M., Böckmann, T. and Nagel, J. 2006. The use of tree models for silvicultural decision making. In: H. Hasenauer (Editor), Sustainable Forest Management. Growth Models for Europe. Springer, Berlin, p. 237-261.
48. Sharpe, P. J. H. 1990. Forest Modeling Approaches-Compromises Between Generality And Precision. In: R. K. Dixon, R. S. Mehldal, G. E. Ruark and E. G. Warren, (Edsitors), Process Modeling Of Forest Growth Responses To Environmental Stress. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, p. 21-32.
49. Shugart, H. H. 1998. Terrestrial ecosystems in changing environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
50. Silberstein, R. P. 2006. Hydrological models are so good, do we still need data? Environmental Modelling and Software 21: 1340-1352.
51. Sims, A., Kangur, A., Hordo, M., Kiviste, A., Jõgiste, K. and Gadow, K. v. 2009. Tracking disturbance-induced changes in stand development at irregular measurement intervals in the Järvselja forest experiments. Baltic Forestry 15, 151-160.
52. Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y. D. P. and Faria, A. S. 2004. An Objective Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Water Management Scenarios. Water Resources Management 18: 35-54.
53. Srdjevic, B. and Srdjevic, Z., 2008. Multilevel Participatory Model for Decision Making on Regional Hydro-System Basis: Serbian Case Study. In: I. E. Gonentz, (Editor), Proceedings. of the NATO SPS (NFA) 5th Workshop on Sustainable Use and Development of Watersheds for Human Security and Peace. Springer Science + Business media B. V.
54. Stage, A. R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development, USDA Forest Service Res. Pap.
55. Söderbergh, I. and Ledermann, T. 2003. Algorithms for simulating thinning and harvesting in five european indi-vidual-tree growth simulators: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 39: 115-140.
56. Thornton, P. E. 1998. Description of a numerical simulation model for predicting the dynamics of energy, water, carbon and nitrogen in a terrestrial ecosystem. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
57. Vanclay, J. K. 2003a. Growth modelling and yield prediction for sustainable forest management. The Malaysian Forester 66: 58-69.
58. Vanclay, J. K. 2003b. Why model landscapes at the level of households and fields. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2: 121-134.
59. Wang, W., Ichii, K., Hashimoto, H., Michaelis, A. R., Thornton, P E, Law, B. E. and Nemani, R. R. 2009. A hierarchical analysis of terrestrial ecosystem model Bi-ome-BGC: Equilibrium analysis and model calibration. Ecological Modelling 220: 2009-2023.
60. Waring, R. H. and Running, S. W., 1998. Forest ecosystems: analysis at multiple scales, 2nd Editio. ed. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
61. Weise, W. 1880. Ertragstafeln für die Kiefer [Yield tables for pine]. Verlag Springer, Berlin, (in German).
62. Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385-397.
63. Windhager, M. 1999. Evaluierung von vier verschiedenen Waldwachstumssimulatoren [Evaluation of four different forest growth simulators]. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, (in German).
64. Zhang, C. Y., Petráš, R., Zhao, X. H. and Gadow, K. v 2009. Estimating Beech Growth and Survival-a study based on longterm experiments in Slovakia. AFJZ. German Journal of Forest Research 180: 45-55.