Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 491–505 | Cite as

An ecological classification of forest landscape simulation models: tools and strategies for understanding broad-scale forested ecosystems



Computer models are increasingly being used by forest ecologists and managers to simulate long-term forest landscape change. We review models of forest landscape change from an ecological rather than methodological perspective. We developed a classification based on the representation of three ecological criteria: spatial interactions, tree species community dynamics, and ecosystem processes. Spatial interactions are processes that spread across a landscape and depend upon spatial context and landscape configuration. Communities of tree species may change over time or can be defined a priori. Ecosystem process representation may range from no representation to a highly mechanistic, detailed representation. Our classification highlights the implicit assumptions of each model group and helps define the problem set for which each model group is most appropriate. We also provide a brief history of forest landscape simulation models, summarize the current trends in methods, and consider how forest landscape models may evolve and continue to contribute to forest ecology and management. Our classification and review can provide novice modelers with the ecological context for understanding or choosing an appropriate model for their specific hypotheses. In addition, our review clarifies the challenges and opportunities that confront practicing model users and model developers.


Landscape ecology Forest models Simulation models Gap models Ecosystem process models 


  1. Aber JD (1998) Mostly a misunderstanding, I believe. Bull Ecol Soc Am 79:256–259Google Scholar
  2. Aber JD, Federer CA (1992) A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia 92:463–474Google Scholar
  3. Aber JD, Neilson RP, McNulty S, Lenihan JM, Bachelet D, Drapek RJ (2001) Forest processes and global environmental change: predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. Bioscience 51:735–751Google Scholar
  4. Aber JD, Bernhardt ES, Dijkstra FA, Gardner RH, Macneale KH, Parton WJ, Pickett STA, Urban DL, Weathers KC (2003) Standards of practice for review and publication of models: summary of discussion. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, pp 204–210Google Scholar
  5. Acevedo MF, Ablan M, Urban DL, Pamarti S (2001) Estimating parameters of forest patch transition models from gap models. Environ Model Softw 16:649–658Google Scholar
  6. Bachelet D, Lenihan JM, Daly C, Neilson RP (2000) Interactions between fire, grazing and climate change at Wind Cave National Park, SD. Ecol Model 134:229–244Google Scholar
  7. Bachelet D, Lenihan JM, Daly C, Neilson RP, Ojima DS, Parton WJ (2001a) MC1: a dynamic vegetation model for estimating the distribution of vegetation and associated ecosystem fluxes of carbon, nutrients, and water. PNW-GTR-508. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bachelet D, Neilson RP, Lenihan JM, Drapek RJ (2001b) Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4:164–185Google Scholar
  9. Bachelet D, Neilson RP, Hickler T, Drapek RJ, Lenihan JM, Sykes MT, Smith B, Sitch S, Thonicke K (2003) Simulating past and future dynamics of natural ecosystems in the United States. Global Biogeochem Cycles 17:1–21Google Scholar
  10. Badeck F, Lischke H, Bugmann H, Hickler T, Honninger K, Lasch P, Lexer MJ, Mouillot F, Schaber J, Smith B (2001) Tree species composition in European pristine forests: comparison of stand data to model predictions. Clim Change 51:307–347Google Scholar
  11. Baker WL (1989) A review of models of landscape change. Landsc Ecol 2:111–333Google Scholar
  12. Baker WL (1992) Effects of settlement and fire suppression on landscape structure. Ecology 73:1879–1887Google Scholar
  13. Baker WL (1993) Spatially heterogeneous multi-scale response of landscapes to fire suppression. Oikos 66:66–71Google Scholar
  14. Baker WL, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Progress and future directions in spatial modeling of forest landscapes. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 333–349Google Scholar
  15. Baker WL, Egbert SL, Frazier GF (1991) A spatial model for studying the effects of climatic change on the structure of landscapes subject to large disturbances. Ecol Model 56:109–125Google Scholar
  16. Balzter H, Braun PW, Kohler W (1998) Cellular automata models for vegetation dynamics. Ecol Model 107:113–125Google Scholar
  17. Barrett TM (2001) Models of vegetative change for landscape planning: a comparison of FETM, LANDSUM, SIMPPLLE, and VDDT. RMRS-GTR-76-WWW. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Botkin DB, Janak JF, Wallis JR (1973) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J Ecol 60:849–872Google Scholar
  19. Bugmann HKM (1996) A simplified forest model to study species composition along climate gradients. Ecology 77:2055–2074Google Scholar
  20. Burke IC, Kaye JP, Bird SP, Hall SA, McCulley RL, Sommerville GL (2003) Evaluating and testing models of terrestrial biogeochemistry: the role of temperature in controlling decomposition. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) The role of models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp 225–253Google Scholar
  21. Busing RT (1991) A spatial model of forest dynamics. Vegetatio 92:167–179Google Scholar
  22. Carpenter SR (2000) Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now. Ecology 83:2069–2083Google Scholar
  23. Cattelino PJ, Noble IR, Slatyer RO, Kessell SR (1979) Predicting the multiple pathways of plant succession. Environ Manage 3:41–50Google Scholar
  24. Clark JS (1998) Why trees migrate so fast: confronting theory with dispersal biology and the paleorecord. Am Nat 152:204–224Google Scholar
  25. Clark JS (2005) Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecol Lett 8:2–14Google Scholar
  26. Clark JS, Carpenter SR, Barber M, Collins S, Dobson A, Foley JA, Lodge DM, Pascual M, Pielke R Jr, Pizer W, Pringle C, Reid WV, Rose KA, Sala O, Schlesinger WH, Wall DH, Wear D (2001) Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293:657–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice IC, Betts RA, Brovkin V, Cox PM, Fisher V, Foley JA, Friend AD, Kucharik C, Lomas MR, Ramankutty N, Sitch S, Smith B, White A, Young-Molling C (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Change Biol 7:357–373Google Scholar
  28. Dale VH, Pearson SM (1999) Modeling the driving factors and ecological consequences of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 256–276Google Scholar
  29. Dale VH, Winkle WV (1998) Models provide understanding, not belief. Bull Ecol Soc Am 79:169–170Google Scholar
  30. Defries RS, Hansen MC JR, Townshend G, Janetos AC, Loveland TR (2000) A new global 1-km dataset of percentage tree cover derived from remote sensing. Glob Change Biol 6:247–254Google Scholar
  31. Easterling WE, Brandle JR, Hays CJ, Guo QF, Guertin DS (2001) Simulating the impact of human land use change on forest composition in the Great Plains agroecosystems with the Seedscape model. Ecol Model 140:163–176Google Scholar
  32. Ek AR, Monserud RA (1979) Performance and comparison of stand growth-models based on individual tree and diameter-class growth. Can J For Res 9:231–244Google Scholar
  33. Engstrom RT, Gilbert S, Hunter ML Jr, Merriwether D, Nowacki GJ, Spencer P (1999) Practical applications of disturbance ecology to natural resource management. In: Szaro RC, Johnson NC, Sexton WT, Malk AJ (eds) Ecological stewardship. A common reference for ecosystem management, vol 2. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp 313–330Google Scholar
  34. Finney MA (1998) Farsite: fire area simulator—model development and evaluation. Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Foley JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Levis S, Pollard D, Sitch S, Haxeltine A (1996) An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 10:602–628Google Scholar
  36. Franklin JF, Forman RTT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principles. Landsc Ecol 1(1):5–18Google Scholar
  37. Gardner RH, Urban DL (2003) Model validation and testing: past lessons, present concerns, future prospects. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp 184–203Google Scholar
  38. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:19–28Google Scholar
  39. Gratzer G, Canham C, Dieckmann U, Fischer A, Iwasa Y, Law R, Lexer MJ, Sandmann H, Spies TA, Splechtna BE, Szwagrzyk J (2004) Spatio-temporal development of forests—current trends in field methods and models. Oikos 107:3–15Google Scholar
  40. Gustafson EJ, Crow TR (1998) Simulating spatial and temporal context of forest management using hypothetical landscapes. Environ Manage 22:777–787PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR, Mladenoff DJ, Nimerfro KK, He HS (2000) Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Can J For Res 30:32–43Google Scholar
  42. Hansen MH, Frieswyk T, Glover JF, Kelly JF (1992) The eastwide forest inventory data base: users manual. GTR NC-151. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Hargrove WW, Gardner RH, Turner MG, Romme WH, Despain DG (2000) Simulating fire patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 135:243–263Google Scholar
  44. Hart DR, Gardner RH (1997) A spatial model for the spread of invading organisms subject to competition. J Math Biol 35:935–948Google Scholar
  45. He HS, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Spatially explicit and stochastic simulation of forest landscape fire disturbance and succession. Ecology 80:81–99Google Scholar
  46. He HS, Mladenoff DJ, Crow TR (1998) Linking an ecosystem model and a landscape model to study forest species response to climate warming. Ecol Model 114:213–233Google Scholar
  47. Hely C, Flannigan MD, Bergeron Y (2003) Modeling tree mortality following wildfire in the southeastern Canadian mixed-wood boreal forest. For Sci 49:566–576Google Scholar
  48. Higgins SI, Clark JS, Nathan R, Hovestadt T, Schurr F, Fragoso JMV, Aguiar MR, Ribbens E, Lavorel S (2003) Forecasting plant migration rates: managing uncertainty for risk assessment. J Ecol 91:341–347Google Scholar
  49. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1997) The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305Google Scholar
  50. Keane RE, Finney MA (2003) The simulation of landscape fire, climate, and ecosystem dynamics. In: Veblen TT, Baker WL, Montenegro G, Swetnam TW (eds) Fire and climatic change in temperate ecosystems of the Western Americas. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp 32–68Google Scholar
  51. Keane RE, Long DG (1998) A comparison of coarse scale fire effects simulation strategies. Northwest Sci 72:76–89Google Scholar
  52. Keane RE, Ryan KC, Running SW (1996) Simulating effects of fire on northern Rocky Mountain landscapes with the ecological process model FIRE-BGC. Tree Physiol 16:319–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Keane RE, Parsons RA, Hessburg PF (2002) Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics: limitations of the simulation approach. Ecol Model 151:29–49Google Scholar
  54. Keane RE, Cary GJ, Davies ID, Flannigan MD, Gardner RH, Lavorel S, Lenihan JM, Li C, Rupp TS (2004) A classification of landscape fire succession models: spatial simulations of fire and vegetation dynamics. Ecol Model 179:3–27Google Scholar
  55. Klenner W, Kurz W, Beukema S (2000) Habitat patterns in forested landscapes: management practices and the uncertainty associated with natural disturbances. Comput Electron Agric 27:243–262Google Scholar
  56. Lenihan JM, Daly C, Bachelet D, Neilson RP (1998) Simulating broad-scale fire severity in a dynamic global vegetation model. Northwest Sci 72:91–103Google Scholar
  57. Lett C, Silber C, Barret N (1999) Comparison of a cellular automata network and an individual-based model for the simulation of forest dynamics. Ecol Model 121:277–293Google Scholar
  58. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 72:1943–1967Google Scholar
  59. Levin SA (1999) Towards a science of ecological management. Conserv Ecol [Online] 3:6Google Scholar
  60. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431Google Scholar
  61. Li C (2000) Reconstruction of natural fire regimes through ecological modelling. Ecol Model 134:129–144Google Scholar
  62. Li C, Flannigan MD, Corns IGW (2000) Influence of potential climate change on forest landscape dynamics of west-central Alberta. Can J For Res 30:1905–1912Google Scholar
  63. Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM, Fisher DW, Pierce RS (1970) Effects of forest cutting and herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 40:23–47Google Scholar
  64. Liu J, Ashton PS (1999) Simulating effects of landscape context and timber harvest on tree species diversity. Ecol Appl 9:186–201Google Scholar
  65. Logofet DO, Lesnaya EV (2000) The mathematics of Markov models: what Markov chains can really predict in forest successions. Ecol Model 126:285–298Google Scholar
  66. Maxwell T, Costanza R (1997) A language for modular spatio-temporal simulation. Ecol Model 103:105–113Google Scholar
  67. Mcguire AD, Sitch S, Clein JS, Dargaville R, Esser G, Foley J, Heimann M, Joos F, Kaplan J, Kicklighter DW, Meier RA, Melillo JM, Moore B, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Reichenau T, Schloss A, Tian H, Williams LJ, Wittenberg U (2001) Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the twentieth century: analyses of Co2, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 15:183–206Google Scholar
  68. Miller C. Urban DL (1999) Forest pattern, fire, and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 2:76–87Google Scholar
  69. Mladenoff DJ (2004) LANDIS and forest landscape models. Ecol Model 180:7–19Google Scholar
  70. Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (1999a) Development of forest and landscape modeling approaches. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  71. Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) (1999b) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Approaches and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  72. Mladenoff DJ, He HS (1999) Design, behavior and application of LANDIS, an object-oriented model of forest landscape disturbance and succession. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 125–162Google Scholar
  73. Mladenoff DJ, Host GE, Boeder J, Crow TR (1996) LANDIS: a spatial model of forest landscape disturbance, succession, and management. In: Goodchild MF, Steyaert LT, Parks BO, Johnston CA, Maidment D, Crane M, Glendinning S (eds) GIS and environmental modeling: progress and research issues. GIS World Books, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp 175–179Google Scholar
  74. Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38:114–117Google Scholar
  75. Neilson RP (1995) A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecol Appl 5:352–385Google Scholar
  76. Neilson RP, Drapek RJ (1998) Potentially complex biosphere responses to transient global warming. Glob Change Biol 4:505–521Google Scholar
  77. Oreskes N (2003) The role of quantitative models in science. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp 13–31Google Scholar
  78. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Silander JA Jr (1993) Forest models defined by field measurements. I. The design of a northeastern forest simulator. Can J For Res 23:1980–1988Google Scholar
  79. Pan Y, Mcguire AD, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW, Sitch S, Prentice IC (2002) A biogeochemistry-based dynamic vegetation model and its application along a moisture gradient in the continental United States. J Veg Sci 13:369–382Google Scholar
  80. Pastor J, Post WM (1986a) Development of a linked forest productivity-soil process model. ORNL/TM-(9519). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  81. Pastor J, Post WM (1986b) Influence of climate, soil moisture, and succession on forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry 2:3–27Google Scholar
  82. Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371Google Scholar
  83. Perry GLW, Enright NJ (2006) Spatial modelling of vegetation change in dynamic landscapes: a review of methods and applications. Prog Phys Geogr 30:47–72Google Scholar
  84. Peters DPC, Herrick JE, Urban DL, Gardner RH, Breshears DD (2004) Strategies for ecological extrapolation. Oikos 106:627–636Google Scholar
  85. Peterson GD (2002) Contagious disturbance, ecological memory, and the emergence of landscape pattern. Ecosystems 5:329–338Google Scholar
  86. Pielke RA Jr (2003) The role of models in prediction for decision. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp 111–138Google Scholar
  87. Pitelka LF, Bugmann H, Reynolds JF (2001) How much physiology is needed in forest gap models for simulating long-term vegetation response to global change? Introduction. Clim Change 51:251–257Google Scholar
  88. Prisley SP, Mortimer MJ (2004) A synthesis of literature on evaluation of models for policy applications, with implications for forest carbon accounting. For Ecol Manage 198:89–103Google Scholar
  89. Rastetter EB (1996) Validating models of ecosystem response to climate change. BioScience 46:190–198Google Scholar
  90. Rastetter EB, Ryan MG, Shaver GR, Melillo JM, Nadelhoffer KJ, Hobbie JE, Aber JD (1991) A general biogeochemical model describing the responses of the C-cycle and N-cycle in terrestrial ecosystems to changes in CO2, climate, and N-deposition. Tree Physiol 9:101–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Reiners WA, Driese KL (2001) The propagation of ecological influences through heterogeneous environmental space. Bioscience 51:939–950Google Scholar
  92. Roberts DW (1996a) Landscape vegetation modelling with vital attributes and fuzzy systems theory. Ecol Model 90:175–184Google Scholar
  93. Roberts DW (1996b) Modelling forest dynamics with vital attributes and fuzzy systems theory. Ecol Model 90:161–173Google Scholar
  94. Running SW, Gower ST (1991) FOREST-BGC, a general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. II. Dynamic carbon allocation and nitrogen budgets. Tree Physiol 9:147–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Rykiel EJ Jr (1996) Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90:229–244Google Scholar
  96. Saxe H, Cannell MGR, Johnsen B, Ryan MG, Vourlitis G (2001) Tree and forest functioning in response to global warming. New Phytol 149:369–399Google Scholar
  97. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ (2004) A forest growth and biomass module for a landscape simulation model, LANDIS: design, validation, and application. Ecol Model 180:211–229Google Scholar
  98. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ (2005) A spatially interactive simulation of climate change, harvesting, wind, and tree species migration and projected changes to forest composition and biomass in northern Wisconsin, USA. Glob Change Biol 11:307–321Google Scholar
  99. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ, Crow TR, Sickley TS (2005) Simulating the effects of fire reintroduction versus continued suppression on forest composition and landscape structure in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northern Minnesota (USA). Ecosystems 8:396–411Google Scholar
  100. Scheller RM, Domingo JB, Sturtevant BR, Williams JS, Rudy A, Gustafson EJ, Mladenoff DJ (in press) Design, development, and application of LANDIS-II, a spatial landscape simulation model with flexible and temporal resolution. Ecol ModelGoogle Scholar
  101. Schulte LA, Mladenoff DJ, Nordheim EV (2002) Quantitative classification of a historic northern Wisconsin (USA) landscape: mapping forests at regional scales. Can J For Res 32: 1616–1638Google Scholar
  102. Sequeira RA, Olson RL, Mckinion JM (1997) Implementing generic, object-oriented models in biology. Ecol Model 94:17–31Google Scholar
  103. Shugart HH (1998) Terrestrial ecosystems in changing environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  104. Soares-Filho BS, Cerqueira GC, Pennachin CL (2002) DINAMICA—a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecol Model 154:217–235Google Scholar
  105. STATSGO (1994) State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base. Data use information. Report number 1492. US Dept. of Agriculture National Cartography and GIS Center, Fort Worth, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  106. Sturtevant BR, Gustafson EJ, Li W, He HS (2004) Modeling biological disturbances in LANDIS: a module description and demonstration using spruce budworm. Ecol Model 180:153–174Google Scholar
  107. Syphard AD, Franklin J, Keeley JE (2006) Simulating the effects of frequent fire on southern California coastal shrublands. Ecol Appl 16:1744–1756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Thonicke K, Venevsky S, Sitch S, Cramer W (2001) The role of fire disturbance for global vegetation dynamics: coupling fire into a dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 10:661–677Google Scholar
  109. Turner MG, Gardner RH, Dale VH, O’Neill RV (1989) Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 55:121–129Google Scholar
  110. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1995) Ecological dynamics at broad scales. Ecosystems and landscapes. BioScience S-29:443–449Google Scholar
  111. Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic peninsula. Ecol Appl 6:1150–1172Google Scholar
  112. Urban DL, Shugart HH (1992) Individual-based models of forest succession. In: Glenn-Lewin DC, Peet RK, Veblen TT (eds) Plant succession: theory and prediction. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp 249–292Google Scholar
  113. Urban DL, Bonan GB, Smith TM, Shugart HH (1991) Spatial application of gap models. For Ecol Manage 42: 95–110Google Scholar
  114. Urban DL, Acevedo MF, Garman SL (1999) Scaling fine-scale processes to large-scale patterns using models derived from models: meta-models. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 70–98Google Scholar
  115. VEMAP Members (1995) Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 9:407–437Google Scholar
  116. Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B (1994) Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol Appl 4(3):569–580Google Scholar
  117. Whittaker RH, Bormann FH, Likens GE, Siccama TG (1974) The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: forest biomass and production. Ecol Monogr 44:233–252Google Scholar
  118. Wolter PT, Mladenoff DJ, Host GE, Crow TR (1995) Improved forest classification in the northern Lake States using multi-temporal landsat imagery. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 61:1129–1143Google Scholar
  119. Woodbury PB, Beloin RM, Swaney DP, Gollands BE, Weinstein DA (2002) Using the ECLPSS software environment to build a spatially explicit component-based model of ozone effects on forest ecosystems. Ecol Model 150:211–238Google Scholar
  120. Yemshanov D, Perera AH (2002) A spatially explicit stochastic model to simulate boreal forest cover transitions: general structure and properties. Ecol Model 150:189–209Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations