Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 624–631 | Cite as

Estimating Dead Wood During National Forest Inventories: A Review of Inventory Methodologies and Suggestions for Harmonization

  • Christopher W. Woodall
  • Jacques Rondeux
  • Pieter J. Verkerk
  • Göran Ståhl
Article

Abstract

Efforts to assess forest ecosystem carbon stocks, biodiversity, and fire hazards have spurred the need for comprehensive assessments of forest ecosystem dead wood (DW) components around the world. Currently, information regarding the prevalence, status, and methods of DW inventories occurring in the world’s forested landscapes is scattered. The goal of this study is to describe the status, DW components measured, sample methods employed, and DW component thresholds used by national forest inventories that currently inventory DW around the world. Study results indicate that most countries do not inventory forest DW. Globally, we estimate that about 13% of countries inventory DW using a diversity of sample methods and DW component definitions. A common feature among DW inventories was that most countries had only just begun DW inventories and employ very low sample intensities. There are major hurdles to harmonizing national forest inventories of DW: differences in population definitions, lack of clarity on sample protocols/estimation procedures, and sparse availability of inventory data/reports. Increasing database/estimation flexibility, developing common dimensional thresholds of DW components, publishing inventory procedures/protocols, releasing inventory data/reports to international peer review, and increasing communication (e.g., workshops) among countries inventorying DW are suggestions forwarded by this study to increase DW inventory harmonization.

Keywords

Inventory Standing dead wood Downed dead wood Harmonization Forest 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all NFI correspondents that provided us information on DW inventory methods. Additionally, some survey responses were based on surveys already conducted by COST Action E43: “Harmonization of National Forest Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting.” Verkerk was financially supported by the EU 6th Framework Programme as part of the SENSOR project [European Commission, contract no. 003874-2 (GOCE)].

References

  1. Albini FA (1976) Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, p 92Google Scholar
  2. Böhl J, Brändli UB (2007) Deadwood volume assessment in the third Swiss National Forest Inventory: methods and first results. European Journal of Forest Research 126:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown S, Sathaye J, Cannell M (1996a) Management of forests for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Impacts, adaptation and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of WG II to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 773–797Google Scholar
  4. Brown S, Sathaye J, Cannell M, Kauppi PE (1996b) Mitigation of carbon emssions to the atmosphere by forest management. Commonwealth Forestry Review 75:80–91Google Scholar
  5. Bull EL, Parks CG, Torgersen TR (1997) Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-391. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 55Google Scholar
  6. Burgan RE, Rothermel RC (1984) BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system—FUEL subsystem. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-167. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, p 126Google Scholar
  7. Deeming JE, Burgan RE, Cohen JD (1977) The national fire-danger rating system. Res. Pap. INT-226. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. p 17Google Scholar
  8. FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2005. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Forestry Paper, Rome, Italy, p 147Google Scholar
  9. Finney MA (1998) FARSITE: fire area simulator—model development and evaluation. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-4. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, p 47Google Scholar
  10. Goodale CL, Apps MJ, Birdsey RA, Field CB, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jenkins JC, Kohlmaier GH, Kurz WA, Liu S, Nabuurs GJ, Nilsson S, Shvidenko AZ (2002) Forest carbon sinks in the northern hemisphere. Ecological Applications 12:891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K Jr, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advanced Ecology Research 15:133–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harmon ME, Woodall CW, Fasth B, Sexton J (2008) Woody detritus density and density reduction factors for tree species in the United States: a synthesis. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. 29, Northern Research Station, p 65Google Scholar
  13. Heath LS, Smith JE, Birdsey RA (2003) Carbon trends in U.S. forest lands: a context for the role of soils in forest carbon sequestration. In: Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lal R (eds) The potential of US forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the Greenhouse effect. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 35–45Google Scholar
  14. Heilmann-Clausen J, Christensen M (2005) Wood-inhabiting macrofungi in Danish beech-forests—conflicting diversity patterns and their implications in a conservation perspective. Biological Conservation 122:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC national greenhouse gas inventories programme. Institute for Global Environmental strategies for the IPCC, Hayama, KanagawaGoogle Scholar
  16. Lonsdale D, Pautasso M, Holdenrieder O (2008) Wood-decaying fungi in the forest: conservation needs and management options. European Journal of Forest Research 127:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maser C, Anderson RG, Cromack Jr K, Williams JT, Martin RE (1979) Dead and down woody material. In: Thomas JW (ed) Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, pp 78–95Google Scholar
  18. MCPFE (2002) Improved pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management as adopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting 7–8 October 2002, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Vienna, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  19. McRoberts RE, Tomppo E, Schadauer K, Vidal C, Göran G, Chirici G, Lanz A, Cienciala E, Winter S, Smith WB (2009) Harmonizing national forest inventories. Journal of Forestry 107:179–187Google Scholar
  20. Ohmann JL, Waddell KL (2002) Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitat of Oregon and Washington. In: Laudenslayer, WFG Jr, Shea PJ, Valentine BE, Weatherspoon CP, Lisle TE (eds) Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2–4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. Reinhardt ED, Keane RE, Brown JK (1997) First order fire effects model: FOFEM 4.0, user’s guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-344. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, p 65Google Scholar
  22. Rothermel RC (1972) A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT-115. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, p 40Google Scholar
  23. Sandström F, Petersson H, Kruys N, Stahl G (2007) Biomass conversion factors (density and carbon concentration) by decay classes for dead wood of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula spp. in boreal forests of Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 243:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11–41Google Scholar
  25. Smith JE, Heath LS, Woodbury PB (2004) Forest carbon sequestration and products storage. In: U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Tech. Bull. 1907. Global Change Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, pp 80–93Google Scholar
  26. Tietje WD, Waddell KL, Vreeland JK, Bolsinger CL (2002) Coarse woody debris in oak woodlands of California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17:139–146Google Scholar
  27. US EPA (2006) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2004. EPA 430-R-06-002. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2006.html (13 June 2006)
  28. Woodall CW, Liknes GC (2008) Relationships between forest fine and coarse woody debris carbon stocks across latitudinal gradients in the United States as an indicator of climate change effects. Ecological Indicators 8:686–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodall CW, Monleon VJ (2008) Sampling protocols, estimation procedures, and analytical guidelines for down woody materials indicator of the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2nd edn. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech . Rep. 22, Northern Research Station, p 68Google Scholar
  30. Woodall CW, Charney JJ, Liknes GC, Potter BE (2005) What is the fire danger now? Linking fuel inventories with atmospheric data. Journal of Forestry 103:293–298Google Scholar
  31. Woodall CW, Heath LS, Smith JE (2008) National inventories of dead and downed forest carbon stocks in the United States: opportunities and challenges. Forest Ecology and Management 256:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher W. Woodall
    • 1
  • Jacques Rondeux
    • 2
  • Pieter J. Verkerk
    • 3
  • Göran Ståhl
    • 4
  1. 1.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Gembloux Agricultural UniversityGemblouxBelgium
  3. 3.European Forest InstituteJoensuuFinland
  4. 4.Department of Forest Resources and GeomaticsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations