Fuzzy-logic modeling of land suitability for hybrid poplar across the Prairie Provinces of Canada

  • B. N. Joss
  • R. J. HallEmail author
  • D. M. Sidders
  • T. J. Keddy


Determining the feasibility of a large-scale afforestation program is one approach being investigated by the Government of Canada to increase Canada’s potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Large-scale afforestation, however, requires knowledge of where it is suitable to establish and grow trees. Spatial models based on Boolean logic and/or statistical models within a geographic information system may be used for this purpose, but empirical environmental data are often lacking, and the association of these data to land suitability is most often a subjective process. As a solution to this problem, this paper presents a fuzzy-logic modeling approach to assess land suitability for afforestation of hybrid poplar (Populus spp.) over the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Expert knowledge regarding the selection and magnitudes of environmental variables were integrated into fuzzy rule sets from which estimates of land suitability were generated and presented in map form. The environmental variables selected included growing season precipitation, climate moisture index, growing degree days, and Canada Land Inventory capability for agriculture and elevation. Approximately 150,000 km2, or 28% of the eligible land base within the Prairie Provinces was found to be suitable for afforestation. Accuracy assessments conducted with fuzzy accuracy methods provided a more descriptive assessment of the resulting land suitability map than figures generated from a more conventional Boolean-based accuracy measure. Modeling, mapping and accuracy assessment issues were identified for future extension of this work to map hybrid poplar land suitability over Canada.


Afforestation Fuzzy-logic modeling GIS Hybrid poplar Land suitability Land evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1998). Determination of poplar wood quality and land suitability. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Innovation Fund.Google Scholar
  2. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2002). Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Overview. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, National Land and Water Information Service Doc. Retrieved May 16, 2002, from
  3. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2003). Considerations for hybrid poplar production. Retrieved December 2003 from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration Shelterbelt Program Web site:
  4. Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (ARDA) (1965). The Canada land inventory: Objectives, scope and organization. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canada Department of Forestry, publication no. 1088, 12 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Baja, S., Chapman, D. M., & Dragovich, D. (2002). Fuzzy modeling of environmental suitability index for rural land use systems: An assessment using GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, J. B., & Broadfoot, W. M. (1977). Site evaluation for commercially important southern hardwoods. General Technical Report SO-26. New Orleans, LA: USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  7. Bardossy, A. (1996). The use of fuzzy rules for the description of elements of the hydrological cycle. Ecological Modelling, 85, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskerville, G. L., & Emin, P. E. (1969). Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperature. Ecology, 50, 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckett, P. H. T., & Webster, R. (1971). Soil variability – a review. Soils and Fertilizers, 34, 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Berguson, W. (1994). Evaluation of land suitability and production economics of hybrid poplar. Final Report 55811. Duluth, Minnesota: National Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  11. Boroski, B. B., Barrett, R. H., Timossi, I. C., & Kie, J. G. (1996). Modelling habitat suitability for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) in heterogeneous landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management, 88, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradshaw, C. J. A., Davis, L. S., Purvis, M., Zhou, Q., & Benwell, G. L. (2002). Using artificial neural networks to model the suitability of coastline for breeding by New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri). Ecological Modelling, 148, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braimoh, A. K., Vlek, P. L. G., & Stein, A. (2004). Land evaluation for maize based on fuzzy set and interpolation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burns, R. M., & Honkala, B. H. (1990). Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods, Vol. 2 (877 pp.). Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
  15. Burnside, N., Smith, R., & Waite, S. (2002). Habitat suitability modelling for calcareous grassland restoration on the South Downs, United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burrough, P. A. (1989). Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. Journal of Soil Science, 40, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burrough, P. A., Beckett, P. H. T., & Jarvis, M. G. (1971). The relations between cost and utility in soil survey. Journal of Soil Science, 22, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burrough, P. A., MacMillan, R. A., & van Deursen, W. (1992). Fuzzy classification methods for determining land suitability from soil profile observations and topography. Journal of Soil Science, 43, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) (2001). Fast-growing tree plantations in Canada. Retrieved March 2004 from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Web site:
  20. Chang, L., & Burrough, P. A. (1987). Fuzzy reasoning: A new quantitative aid for land evaluation. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 7, 69–80.Google Scholar
  21. Cihlar, J., Beaubien, J., & Latifovic, R. (2002). Land cover of Canada 1998. Special Publication, NBIOME Project. Produced by the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and the Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. Available from the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
  22. Davidson, D. A., Theocharopoulos, S. P., & Bloksma, R. J. (1994). A land evaluation project in Greece using GIS and based on Boolean and fuzzy set methodologies. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 8(4), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Debeljak, M., Dzeroski, S., Jerina, K., Kobler, A., & Adamic, M. (2001). Habitat suitability modelling for red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in South-central Slovenia with classification trees. Ecological Modelling, 138, 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Bruin, S., & Stein, A. (1998). Soil-landscape modelling using fuzzy c-means clustering of attribute data derived from a digital elevation model (DEM). Geoderma, 83, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Ecological Stratification Working Group (1995). A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Report and national map at 1:7 500 000.Google Scholar
  27. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2005). ArcInfo. Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  28. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1985). Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  29. Goguen, J. (1969). The logic of inexact concepts. Synthese, 19, 325–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gopal, S., & Woodcock, C. (1994). Theory and methods for accuracy assessment of thematic maps using fuzzy sets. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60(2), 181–188.Google Scholar
  31. Government of Canada (2000). Canada land inventory. Retrieved January 2003 from the Government of Canada Web site:
  32. Green, P. E. (1978). Analyzing multivariate data. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gustafson, E. J., Lietz, S. M., & Wright, J. L. (2003). Predicting the spatial distribution of aspen growth potential in the upper Great Lakes region. Forest Science, 49(4), 499–508.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, G. B., Wang, F., & Subaryono, S. (1992). Comparison of Boolean and fuzzy classification methods in land suitability analysis by using geographical information systems. Environment and Planning A, 24, 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hall, R. J., Joss, B. N., Sidders, D. M., & Keddy, T. J. (2004). The FAACS backcast: Afforestation activity in the Prairie Provinces (1990–2002). The Forestry Chronicle, 80(6), 727–735.Google Scholar
  36. Hansen, E., Netzer, D., Ostry, M., Tolsted, D., & Ward, K. (1995). Short rotation woody crop trials for energy production in north central United States. St. Paul, MN: North Central Forestry Experiment Station, Forest Sciences Laboratory, Final Report.Google Scholar
  37. Hansen, E., Netzer, D., & Tolsted, D. (1993). Guidelines for establishing poplar plantations in the north-central U.S. Report NC-363. U.S.D.A.–Forest Service Res.Google Scholar
  38. Heilmann, P., Stettler, R. F., Hanley, D. P., & Carkner, W. (1990). High yielding poplar plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Washington State University publication, PNW356.Google Scholar
  39. Hogg, E. H. (1994). Climate and the southern limit of the western Canadian boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24, 1835–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hogg, E. H. (1997). Temporal scaling of moisture and the forest-grassland boundary in western Canada. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 84, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hogg, E. H., Brandt, J. P., & Kochtubajda, B. (2002). Growth and dieback of aspen forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32, 823–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hogg, E. H., & Schwarz, A. G. (1999). Tree-ring analysis of declining aspen stands in west-central Saskatchewan. Edmonton, AB: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Information Report NOR-X-359.Google Scholar
  43. Inform Software Corporation (2001). FuzzyTECH professional edition. Chicago, IL: Inform Software Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., & Flynn, P. J. (1999). Data clustering: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 31(3), 264–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jiang, H., & Eastman, J. R. (2000). Application of fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(2), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joerin, F., Theriault, M., & Musy, A. (2001). Using GIS and outranking multicriteria analysis of land-use suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, W., & Wene, E. (2002). Short rotation forestry of hybrid poplars: Choice of land. Retrieved May 2003 from the University of Minnesota Web site:
  48. Kalogirou, S. (2002). Expert systems and GIS: An application of land suitability evaluation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaufmann, A. (1975). Introduction to the theory of fuzzy subsets. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  50. Kimmins, J. P. (1997). Forest ecology: A foundation for sustainable management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Kollias, V. J., & Kalivas, D. P. (1998). The enhancement of a commercial geographical information system (ARC/INFO) with fuzzy processing capabilities for the evaluation of land resources. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 20, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lexer, M. J., Honninger, K., & Vacik, H. (2000). Modelling the effect of forest site conditions on the ecophysiological suitability of tree species: An approach based on fuzzy set theory. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 27, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liu, M., & Samal, A. (2002). A fuzzy clustering approach to delineate agroecozones. Ecological Modelling, 149, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mackinson, S. (2000). An adaptive fuzzy expert system for predicting structure, dynamics and distribution of herring shoals. Ecological Modelling, 126, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malczewski, J. (2002). Fuzzy screening for land suitability analysis. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 6(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McBratney, A. B., & Odeh, O. A. (1997). Application of fuzzy sets in soil science: Fuzzy logic, fuzzy measurements and fuzzy decisions. Geoderma, 77, 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McKenney, D. E. W., Hutchinson, M. F., Kesteven, J. L., & Venier, L. A. (2001). Canada’s plant hardiness zones revisited using modern climate interpolation techniques. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81, 129–143.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, R. O. (2004). Fiber farming using Populus hybrids, aspen, and European larch in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Retrieved January 2003 from the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Web site:,_aspen,_and_european.pdf.
  59. Muller, S. V., Walker, D. A., Nelson, F. E., Auerbach, N. A., Bockhelm, J. G., Guyer, S., et al. (1998). Accuracy assessment of a land-cover map of the Kuparuk River Basin, Alaska: Considerations for remote regions. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 64(6), 619–628.Google Scholar
  60. Nadeau, L. B., Li, C., & Corns, I. G. W. (2002). Computerized plant community classification: An application of fuzzy logic. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-384.Google Scholar
  61. Nisar, A. T. R., Gopal Rao, K., & Murthy, J. S. R. (2000). GIS-based fuzzy membership model for crop-land suitability suitability analysis. Agricultural Systems, 63(2), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oberthur, T., Dobermann, A., & Aylward, M. (2000). Using auxillary information to adjust fuzzy membership functions for improved mapping of soil qualities. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(5), 431–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peterson, E. B., Bonnor, G. M., Robinson, G. C., & Peterson, N. M. (Nawitka Renewable Resource Consultants Ltd.) (1999). Carbon sequestration aspects of an afforestation program in Canada’s Prairie Provinces. Joint Forest Sector Table/Sinks Table, National Climate Change Process.Google Scholar
  64. Phillis, Y. A., & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A. (2001). Sustainability: An ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics, 37, 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Riitters, K. H., O’Neill, R. V., & Jones, K. B. (1997). Assessing habitat suitability at multiple scales: A landscape-level approach. Biological Conservation, 81, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ruger, N., Schluter, M., & Matthies, M. (2005). A fuzzy habitat suitability index for Populus euphratica in the Northern Amudarya delta (Uzbekistan). Ecological Modelling, 184, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schroeder, W., Silim, S., Fradette, J., Patterson, J., & de Gooijer, H. (2003). Detailed site analysis and mapping of agroforestry potential in the northern agricultural zone of Saskatchewan. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Final Report to Saskatchewan Forestry Centre.Google Scholar
  68. Shock, C. C., Beibert, E. B. G., Seddigh, M., & Saunders, L. D. (2002). Water requirements and growth of irrigated hybrid poplar in a semi-arid environment in eastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 17(1), 46–53.Google Scholar
  69. Sicat, R. S., Carranza, E. J. M., & Nidumolu, U. B. (2005). Fuzzy modeling of farmers’ knowledge for land suitability classification. Agricultural Systems, 83, 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silvert, W. (2000). Fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecological Modelling, 130, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stanturf, J. A., van Oosten, C., Netzer, D. A., Coleman, M. D., & Portwood, C. J. (2002). Ecology and silviculture of poplar plantations. In D. I. Dickmann, J. G. Isebrands, J. E. Eckenwalder, & J. Richardson (Eds.), Poplar Culture in North America (pp. 153–206). Ottawa, Ontario: NRCan Research Press.Google Scholar
  72. Tang, H. J., & Van Ranst, E. (1992). Testing of fuzzy set theory in land suitability assessment for rainfed grain maize production. Pedologie, 42, 129–147.Google Scholar
  73. Tegelmark, D. O. (1998). Site factors as multivariate predictors of the success of natural regeneration in Scots pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 109, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vanin, C., & Burgon, M. (2003). Development of suitability maps for hybrid poplar production in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Internal Report.Google Scholar
  75. Van Ranst, E., Tang, H., Groenemans, R., & Sinthurahat, S. (1996). Application of fuzzy logic to land suitability for rubber production in peninsular Thailand. Geoderma, 70, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams, J., & Griss, P. (Arborvitae Environmental Services) (1999). Design and implementation options for a national afforestation program(s).Google Scholar
  77. Woodcock, C. E., & Gopal, S. (2000). Fuzzy set theory and thematic maps: Accuracy assessment and area estimation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zadeh, L. (1973). Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex or imprecise concepts. IEEE Transactions: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3, 28–44.Google Scholar
  80. Zadeh, L., Fu, K., Tanaka, K., & Shimura, M. (Eds.) (1975). Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. N. Joss
    • 1
  • R. J. Hall
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. M. Sidders
    • 1
  • T. J. Keddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest ServiceNorthern Forestry CentreEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations