European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 129, Issue 3, pp 377–391 | Cite as

Evaluation of a process-based ecosystem model for long-term biomass and stand development of Eucalyptus globulus plantations

  • Peter MiehleEmail author
  • Rüdiger Grote
  • Michael Battaglia
  • Paul M. Feikema
  • Stefan K. Arndt
Original Paper


Versatile process-oriented ecosystem models are discussed as promising tools for the analyses of ecosystem services beyond wood yield, such as catchment water yield, sequestration of carbon and greenhouse gas balances. However, long-term yield simulation is often regarded as a weakness of such versatile models. In this context, we present a multiple response evaluation of the modular, process-based forest growth model MoBiLE-PDT based on mensurational data from 38 permanent sample plots in commercial Eucalyptus globulus plantations in Australia followed from establishment to 8 years of stand age. MoBiLE-PDT is based on the PnET-N-DNDC model and considers nitrogen availability and drought stress dynamically in dependence on tree and stand properties as well as on climate and deposition. New tree dimensions are calculated directly from carbon allocated to sapwood and mortality is derived from stand density. Towards the end of the rotation, model efficiency E was 0.58 for stand volume (m3 ha−1) and 0.54 for aboveground biomass (t C ha−1). In a comparison with similar forest growth models evaluated against the same data only one had a better model efficiency, whereas MoBiLE-PDT was the most versatile model for the analyses of ecosystem services. Due to its modular structure, further model extensions for more ecological applications are easily possible.


Eucalyptus globulus MoBiLE-PDT Forest growth Model coupling Process-based model Evaluation 



This study was funded by the Victorian Greenhouse Strategy and supported by the DFG-Forschergruppe FOR 788: ‘Competitive Mechanisms of Water and Nitrogen Partitioning in Beech-Dominated Deciduous Forests’.


  1. Aber JD, Federer CA (1992) A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia 92:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aber JD, Ollinger SV, Federer CA, Reich PB, Goulden ML, Kicklighter DW, Melillo JM, Lathrop RG (1995) Predicting the effects of climate change on water yield and forest production in the northeastern United States. Clim Res 5:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aber JD, Reich PB, Goulden ML (1996) Extrapolating leaf CO2 exchange to the canopy: a generalized model of forest photosynthesis compared with measurements by eddy correlation. Oecologia 106:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida AC, Landsberg JJ, Sands PJ, Ambrogi MS, Fonseca S, Barddal SM, Bertolucci FL (2004) Needs and opportunities for using a process-based productivity model as a practical tool in eucalyptus plantations. For Ecol Manag 193:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball T, Smith KA, Moncrieff JB (2007) Effect of stand age on greenhouse gas fluxes from a Sitka spruce [Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.] chronosequence on a peaty gley soil. Glob Chang Biol 13:2128–2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battaglia M (2001) Stand age effects on productivity in forests: representation in models and influence on net ecosystem exchange. In: Kirschbaum MUF, Mueller R (eds) Net ecosystem exchange. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting, Canberra, pp 50–57Google Scholar
  7. Battaglia M, Sands P (1997) Modelling site productivity of Eucalyptus globulus in response to climatic and site factors. Aust J Plant Physiol 24:831–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battaglia M, Sands PJ (1998) Process-based forest productivity models and their application in forest management. For Ecol Manag 102:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battaglia M, Beadle C, Loughhead S (1996) Photosynthetic temperature responses of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens. Tree Physiol 16:81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Battaglia M, Sands PJ, Candy SG (1999) Hybrid growth model to predict height and volume growth in young Eucalyptus globulus plantations. For Ecol Manag 120:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Battaglia M, Sands P, White D, Mummery D (2004) CABALA: a linked carbon, water and nitrogen model of forest growth for silvicultural decision support. For Ecol Manag 193:251–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohne K (1998) Wasserbewegung und Wasserleitfähigkeit des Bodens. In: Blume HP, Felix-Henningsen P, Fischer WR, Frede HG, Horn R, Stahr K (eds) Handbuch der Bodenkunde. Ecomed, Landsberg/Lech, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  13. Bossel H (1996) TREEDYN3 forest simulation model. Ecol Modell 90:187–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briceno-Elizondo E, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Peltola H, Matala J, Kellomäki S (2006) Sensitivity of growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch to climate change and forest management in boreal conditions. For Ecol Manag 232:152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butterbach-Bahl K, Stange F, Papen H, Li C (2001) Regional inventory of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emissions for forest soils of southeast Germany using the biogeochemical model PnET-N-DNDC. J Geophys Res 106:34155–34166Google Scholar
  16. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: model implementation and sensitivity. Mon Weather Rev 129:569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Close DC, Battaglia M, Davidson NJ, Beadle CL (2004) Within-canopy gradients of nitrogen and photosynthetic activity of Eucalyptus nitens and Eucalyptus globulus in response to nitrogen nutrition. Aust J Bot 52:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Condes S, Sterba H (2005) Derivation of compatible crown width equations for some important tree species of Spain. For Ecol Manag 217:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coops NC, Waring RH (2001) Assessing forest growth across southwestern Oregon under a range of current and future global change scenarios using a process model, 3-PG. Glob Chang Biol 7:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corbeels M, McMurtrie RE, Pepper DA, Mendham DS, Grove TS, O’Connell AM (2005a) Long-term changes in productivity of eucalypt plantations under different harvest residue and nitrogen management practices: a modelling analysis. For Ecol Manag 217:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbeels M, McMurtrie RE, Pepper DA, O’Connell AM (2005b) A process-based model of nitrogen cycling in forest plantations. Part II. Simulating growth and nitrogen mineralisation of Eucalyptus globulus plantations in south-western Australia. Ecol Modell 187:449–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cseresnyes I, Csontos P, Bozsing E (2006) Stand age influence on litter mass of Pinus nigra plantations on dolomite hills in Hungary. Can J Bot 84:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Esprey LJ, Sands PJ, Smith CW (2004) Understanding 3-PG using a sensitivity analysis. For Ecol Manag 193:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feikema PM, Baker TG, Duncan MJ (2003a) Climate and soil based information for farm forestry: progress report 2001–2003. No. 2003/019. Forest Science Centre, Department of Sustainability and Environment, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  25. Feikema PM, Sargeant IJ, Imhof MP (2003b) Characterisation of soils used for farm forestry in south-eastern mainland Australia: progress report no. 2001/027. Forest Science Centre, Department of Sustainability and Environment, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  26. Funk JL, Giardina CP, Knohl A, Lerdau MT (2006) Influence of nutrient availability, stand age, and canopy structure on isoprene flux in a Eucalyptus saligna experimental forest. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 111:G02012Google Scholar
  27. Gindaba J, Rozanov A, Negash L (2005) Photosynthetic gas exchange, growth and biomass allocation of two Eucalyptus and three indigenous tree species of Ethiopia under moisture deficit. For Ecol Manag 205:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grote R (2005) A modular simulation environment to assess interacting environmental impacts on plants. In: Workshop proceedings: critical levels of ozone: further applying and developing the flux-based concept. Obergurgl, Tyrol, Austria, pp 82–87Google Scholar
  29. Grote R, Pretzsch H (2002) A model for individual tree development based on physiological processes. Plant Biol 4:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grote R, Reiter IM (2004) Competition-dependent modelling of foliage biomass in forest stands. Trees-Struct Funct 18:596–607Google Scholar
  31. Grote R, Lehmann E, Brümmer C, Brüggemann N, Szarzynski J, Kunstmann H (2009) Modelling and observation of biosphere-atmosphere interactions in natural savanna and agriculture in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Phys Chem Earth 34:251–260Google Scholar
  32. Hingston FJ, Galbraith JH, Dimmock GM (1998) Application of the process-based model BIOMASS to Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus plantations on ex-farmland in south Western Australia—I. Water use by trees and assessing risk of losses due to drought. For Ecol Manag 106:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hyytiäinen K, Hari P, Kokkila T, Mäkelä A, Tahvonen O, Taipale J (2004) Connecting a process-based forest growth model to stand-level economic optimization. Can J For Res 34:2060–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janssen PHM, Heuberger PSC (1995) Calibration of processoriented models. Ecol Modell 83:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeffrey SJ, Carter JO, Moodie KB, Beswick AR (2001) Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data. Environ Modell Softw 16:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnsen K, Samuelson L, Teskey R, McNulty S, Fox T (2001) Process models as tools in forestry research and management. For Sci 47:2–8Google Scholar
  37. Kesik M, Brüggemann N, Forkel R, Kiese R, Knoche R, Li C, Seufert G, Simpson D, Butterbach-Bahl K (2006) Future scenarios of N2O and NO emissions from European forest soils. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 111:G02018Google Scholar
  38. Kiese R, Li C, Hilbert DW, Papen H, Butterbach-Bahl K (2005) Regional application of PnET-N-DNDC for estimating the N2O source strength of tropical rainforests in the Wet Tropics of Australia. Glob Chang Biol 11:128–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korzukhin MD, TerMikaelian MT, Wagner RG (1996) Process versus empirical models: which approach for forest ecosystem management? Can J For Res 26:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landsberg J (2003a) Modelling forest ecosystems: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Can J For Res 33:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Landsberg J (2003b) Physiology in forest models: history and the future. For Biom Modell Inform Sci 1:49–63Google Scholar
  42. Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manag 95:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of ‘‘goodnessof-fit’’ measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Le Roux X, Lacointe A, Escobar-Gutierrez A, Le Dizes S (2001) Carbon-based models of individual tree growth: a critical appraisal. Ann For Sci 58:469–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li CS, Frolking S, Frolking TA (1992) A model of nitrous-oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events. 1. Model structure and sensitivity. J Geophys Res Atmos 97:9759–9776Google Scholar
  46. Li CS, Aber J, Stange F, Butterbach-Bahl K, Papen H (2000) A process-oriented model of N2O and NO emissions from forest soils: 1. Model development. J Geophys Res Atmos 105:4369–4384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mäkelä A (2003) Process-based modelling of tree and stand growth: towards a hierarchical treatment of multiscale processes. Can J For Res 33:398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mäkelä A, Landsberg J, Ek AR, Burk TE, Ter-Mikaelian M, Ågren GI, Oliver CD, Puttonen P (2000) Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of the art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol 20:289–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Miehle P, Livesley SJ, Feikema PM, Li C, Arndt SK (2006) Assessing productivity and carbon sequestration capacity of Eucalyptus globulus plantations using the process model Forest-DNDC: calibration and validation. Ecol Modell 192:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miehle P, Battaglia M, Sands P, Forrester DI, Feikema PM, Livesley SJ, Morris J, Arndt S (2009) A comparison of four process-based models and a statistical regression model to predict growth of Eucalyptus globulus plantations. Ecol Modell 220:734–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Misra RK, Turnbull CRA, Cromer RN, Gibbons AK, LaSala AV (1998) Below-and above-ground growth of Eucalyptus nitens in a young plantation—I. Biomass. For Ecol Manag 106:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Monserud RA (2003) Evaluating forest models in a sustainable forest management context. For Biom Modell Inform Sci 1:35–47Google Scholar
  53. Monserud RA, Sterba H (1999) Modeling individual tree mortality for Austrian forest species. For Ecol Manag 113:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Monserud RA, Ledermann T, Sterba H (2004) Are self-thinning constraints needed in a tree-specific mortality model? For Sci 50:848–858Google Scholar
  55. Mroczkowski M, Raper GP, Kuczera G (1997) The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models. Water Resour Res 33:2325–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Grady AP, Worledge D, Battaglia M (2006) Above- and below-ground relationships, with particular reference to fine roots, in a young Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) stand in southern Tasmania. Trees-Struct Funct 20:531–538Google Scholar
  57. Osorio J, Pereira JS (1994) Genotypic differences in water-use efficiency and C-13 discrimination in Eucalyptus globulus. Tree Physiol 14:871–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Paul K, Polglase P, Richards G (2003) Sensitivity analysis of predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation. Ecol Modell 164:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paul K, Polglase P, Snowdon P, Theiveyanathan T, Raison J, Grove T, Rance S (2006) Calibration and uncertainty analysis of a carbon accounting model to stem wood density and partitioning of biomass for Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus radiata. New For 31:513–533Google Scholar
  60. Pretzsch H, Grote R, Reineking B, Rötzer T, Seifert S (2008) Models for forest ecosystem management: a European perspective. Ann Bot 101:1065–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Resh SC, Battaglia M, Worledge D, Ladiges S (2003) Coarse root biomass for eucalypt plantations in Tasmania, Australia: sources of variation and methods for assessment. Trees-Struct Funct 17:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saggar S, Giltrap DL, Li C, Tate KR (2007) Modelling nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands in New Zealand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Saiz G, Byrne KA, Butterbach-Bahl K, Kiese R, Blujdeas V, Farrell EP (2006) Stand age-related effects on soil respiration in a first rotation Sitka spruce chronosequence in central Ireland. Glob Chang Biol 12:1007–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sands PJ, Landsberg JJ (2002) Parameterisation of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. For Ecol Manag 163:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwalm CR, Ek AR (2001) Climate change and site: relevant mechanisms and modeling techniques. For Ecol Manag 150:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Snowdon P, Eamus D, Gibbons P, Khanna PK, Keith H, Raison J, Kirschbaum MUF (2000) Synthesis of allometrics, review of root biomass and design of future woody biomass sampling strategies. National Carbon Accounting System technical report; no. 17. Australian Greenhouse OfficeGoogle Scholar
  68. Soares JV, Almeida AC (2001) Modeling the water balance and soil water fluxes in a fast growing eucalyptus plantation in Brazil. J Hydrol 253:130–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Soares P, Tome M (2001) A tree crown ratio prediction equation for eucalypt plantations. Ann For Sci 58:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stange F, Butterbach-Bahl K, Papen H, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Li C, Aber J (2000) A process-oriented model of N2O and NO emissions from forest soils: 2. Sensitivity analysis and validation. J Geophys Res 105:4385–4398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stape JL, Ryan MG, Binkley D (2004) Testing the utility of the 3-PG model for growth of Eucalyptus grandis Xurophylla with natural and manipulated supplies of water and nutrients. For Ecol Manag 193:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1957) Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Drexel Institute of Technology, Centerton 311 pGoogle Scholar
  73. Uhlenbrook S, Leibundgut C (2002) Process-oriented catchment modelling and multiple-response validation. Hydrol Process 16:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Valentine HT, Mäkelä A (2005) Bridging process-based and empirical approaches to modeling tree growth. Tree Physiol 25:769–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanclay JK, Skovsgaard JP (1997) Evaluating forest growth models. Ecol Modell 98:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wallman P, Svensson MGE, Sverdrup H, Belyazid S (2005) ForSAFE—an integrated process-oriented forest model for long-term sustainability assessments. For Ecol Manag 207:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Warren CR (2006) Potential organic and inorganic N uptake by six Eucalyptus species. Funct Plant Biol 33:653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Warren CR, Adams PR (2007) Uptake of nitrate, ammonium and glycine by plants of Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests. Tree Physiol 27:413–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. White DA, Beadle CL, Sands PJ, Worledge D, Honeysett JL (1999) Quantifying the effect of cumulative water stress on stomatal conductance of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens: a phenomenological approach. Aust J Plant Physiol 26:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Miehle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rüdiger Grote
    • 2
  • Michael Battaglia
    • 3
    • 4
  • Paul M. Feikema
    • 4
    • 5
  • Stefan K. Arndt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest and Ecosystem ScienceThe University of MelbourneRichmondAustralia
  2. 2.Forschungszentrum KarlsuheIMK-IFUGarmisch-PartenkirchenGermany
  3. 3.CSIRO Forest BiosciencesHobartAustralia
  4. 4.Cooperative Research Centre for ForestryCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Forest and Ecosystem ScienceThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations