Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 69, Issue 4, pp 455–465

Even-aged or uneven-aged modelling approach? A case for Pinus brutia

  • Sergio de-Miguel
  • Timo Pukkala
  • Nabil Assaf
  • José Antonio Bonet
Original Paper
  • 163 Downloads

Abstract

Context

The past management of Pinus brutia forests in Lebanon has led to diverse stand structures that cannot be easily classified as even-aged (EA) or uneven-aged (UA). Most stands are between these stand types, and they may be called as “semi-even-aged”. This is a very common characteristic throughout the Mediterranean conifer forests and makes the choice between the EA and UA approaches problematic, in both management and modelling. However, previous research has devoted little attention to the performance of growth and yield models when applied to transitional stand structures.

Aims

The aim of this study was to find the best modelling approach and to recommend equations for simulating the dynamics of the semi-even-aged P. brutia stands of Lebanon on an individual-tree basis.

Methods

Fifty sample plots were measured in Lebanon. Individual-tree growth models were fitted to the whole dataset using either UA or EA modelling approach. Models were also fitted using two sub-samples containing the most EA and the most UA plots. The performance and accuracy of the two modelling approaches were evaluated in all three datasets.

Results

The article provides the first complete growth model for uneven-aged P. brutia stands. The EA sub-models presented better statistical fitting. However, the UA sub-models enabled more accurate predictions of wood production and were almost as good as the EA sub-models when predicting stand dynamics of the EA plots. The EA approach provided poor predictions, and the errors were high when it was applied to UA stands.

Conclusions

In structurally complex stands, the UA modelling approach is to be preferred since it predicts the whole stand dynamics more accurately and enables simulations of a broader range of silvicultural treatments.

Keywords

Stand dynamics Forest management Semi-even-aged stands Growth model Simulation Model evaluation 

References

  1. Assaf N (2010) A growth and yield model for even-aged Pinus brutia Ten. stands in Lebanon. M.Sc.Thesis, University of Lleida, SpainGoogle Scholar
  2. Boydak M (2004) Silvicultural characteristics and natural regeneration of Pinus brutia Ten.—a review. Plant Ecol 171:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buongiorno J, Dahir S, Lu HC, Lin CR (2004) Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. For Sci 40:83–103Google Scholar
  4. Clutter JL, Forston JC, Piennar LV, Brister GH, Bailey RL (1983) Timber management—a quantitative approach. Willey, New York, 333 pGoogle Scholar
  5. de-Miguel S, Pukkala T, Shater Z, Assaf N, Kraid B, Palahí M (2010) Models for simulating the development of even-aged Pinus brutia stands in Middle East. Forest Systems 19:449–457Google Scholar
  6. de-Miguel S, Shater Z, Kraid B, Mehtätalo L, Pukkala T (2011) Modelling the taper of Pinus brutia in Syria (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Fischer R, Lorenz M, Köhl M, Becher G, Granke O, Christou A (2008) The condition of forests in Europe: 2008 executive report. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution, International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP Forests). 23 p.Google Scholar
  8. Fontaine M, Aerts R, Özkan K, Mert A, Gülsoy S, Süel H, Waelkens M, Muys B (2007) Elevation and exposition rather than soil types determine communities and site suitability in Mediterranean mountain forests of southern Anatolia, Turkey. For Ecol Manage 247:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fyllas NM, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Troumbis AY (2008) Regeneration dynamics of a mixed Mediterranean pine forest in the absence of fire. For Ecol Manage 256:1552–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gauch HG, Hwang JTG, Fick GW (2003) Model evaluation by comparison of model-based predictions and measured values. Agron J 95:1442–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gezer A (1985) The sylviculture of Pinus brutia in Turkey. In: CIHEAM, le pin d’Alep et le pin brutia dans la sylviculture méditerranéenne. Options Méditerranéennes, Série Etudes, Paris, 86:55-66.Google Scholar
  12. González, JM (2005) Introducción a la selvicultura general. Ed. Universidad de León. León. 309 pp. ISBN: 84-9773-223-5.Google Scholar
  13. Groot A (2002) Is uneven-aged silviculture applicable to peatland black spruce (Picea mariana) in Ontario, Canada? Forestry 75:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jactel H, Nicoll BC, Branco M, González-Olabarria JR, Grodzki W, Gangstrom B, Moreira F, Netherer S, Orazio C, Piou D, Santos H, Schelhaas MJ, Tojic K, Vodde F (2009) The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Ann For Sci 66Google Scholar
  15. Kobayashi K, Salam MU (2000) Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agron J 92:345–352Google Scholar
  16. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1996) Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. Wiley, New York, p 540Google Scholar
  17. Palahí M, Pukkala T, Kasimiadis D, Poirazidis K, Papageorgiou AC (2008) Modelling site quality and individual-tree growth in pure and mixed Pinus brutia stands in north-east Greece. Ann For Sci 65:501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peng C (2000) Growth and yield models for uneven-aged stands: past, present and future. For Ecol Manage 132:259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peschel W (1938) Die mathematischen methoden zur herleitung der wachstumsgesetze von baum und bestand und die ergebnisse ihrer anwendung. Tharandter Forstliches Jahrburch 89:169–247Google Scholar
  20. Piñeiro G, Perelman S, Guerschman JP, Paruelo JM (2008) How to evaluate models: observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed? Ecol Model 216:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
  22. Render B, Stair RM (1992) Introduction to management science. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 856 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Shater Z, de-Miguel S, Kraid B, Pukkala T, Palahí M (2011) A growth and yield model for even-aged Pinus brutia stands in Syria. Ann For Sci 68:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skovsgaard JP, Vanclay JK (2008) Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry 81:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton P (1996) The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology, 9th ed. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterba H (2004) Equilibrium curves and growth models to deal with forests in transition to uneven-aged structure – application in two sample stands. Silva Fennica 38:413–423Google Scholar
  27. Stoffels A, Van Soest J (1953) The main problems in sample plots. Ned Boschb Tijdschr 25:190–199Google Scholar
  28. Tomé M. (1989) Modelação do crescimiento da árvore individual em povoamentos de Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (1ª Rotação). Região Centro de Portugal. PhD thesis, ISA, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  29. Vanclay JK (1994) Modelling forest growth and yield: applications to mixed tropical forests. CAB International, UK, 312 pGoogle Scholar
  30. Vanclay JK (2003) Growth modelling and yield prediction for sustainable forest management. The Malaysian Forester 66(1):58–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA / Springer-Verlag France 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio de-Miguel
    • 1
  • Timo Pukkala
    • 1
  • Nabil Assaf
    • 2
  • José Antonio Bonet
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and ForestryUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Paris Sorbonne University (Paris IV)ParisFrance
  3. 3.Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya (CTFC)SolsonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Crop and Forest ScienceUniversity of LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations