European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 263–282 | Cite as

A climate-sensitive empirical growth and yield model for forest management planning of even-aged beech stands

  • Antoni TrasobaresEmail author
  • Andreas Zingg
  • Lorenz Walthert
  • Christof Bigler
Original Paper


The optimization of forest management under climate change uncertainty requires a comparison of many alternative management options under different climate scenarios and the use of stochastic and adaptive approaches. Empirical growth and yield models are highly suitable for this, provided they include sensitivity to environmental influences. Here, we present a climate-sensitive empirical growth and yield model that is based on the direct integration of environmental effects in dynamic growth and survival functions, which allows for the evaluation of changing site conditions over time. Individual-tree diameter and height growth and the probability of a tree to survive any 5-year period were modelled for even-aged beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands in Switzerland using a distance-independent approach. Changing site conditions were based on a drought index (locally adjusted water balance) and sum of degree-days. The data for fitting the model were taken from 30 permanent yield plots repeatedly measured from 1930 to 2010. Reasonable results were obtained in the model evaluation: (1) validation against independent National Forest Inventory data indicated that the incorporation of drought and sum of degree-days in the model was appropriate; (2) accurate simulations over around 50 years of past stand development were achieved (for changes in basal area over 5-year measurements in all plots, the bias was 3 % and the root mean square error 32 %); and (3) the impact of climate change may vary considerably along the range of current site conditions. We thus conclude that the model can be used in management planning under climate change uncertainty.


Climate change Soil water holding capacity Forest site evaluation Mixed models Simulation Optimization 



We thank Matthias Dobbertin (WSL) for the provision of Level I (Sanasilva) and Level II forest inventory and soil data. It was nice working with him. We also thank U.-B. Brändli (WSL) for the provision of the SNFI data and Dirk Schmatz and Nick Zimmermann (WSL) for the provision of downscaled climate scenario data. Harald Bugmann is acknowledged for participating actively in the development of the presented approach and providing important support. We thank Jerry Vanclay, Jari Miina, Jette B. Jacobsen, Annikki Mäkelä and the two reviewers for their comments. This research was funded by the MOTIVE project within the European commission’s 7th framework program (Grant agreement No. 226544).

Supplementary material

10342_2015_934_MOESM1_ESM.docx (234 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 235 kb)


  1. Álvarez-González JG, Zingg A, Von Gadow K (2010) Estimating growth in beech forests: a study based on long term experiments in Switzerland. Ann For Sci 67:307. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin VC Jr, Burkhart HA, Westfall JA, Peterson KD (2001) Linking growth and yield and process models to estimate impact of environmental changes on growth of loblolly pine. For Sci 47(1):77–82Google Scholar
  3. Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigler C, Bugmann H (2004) Predicting the time of tree death using dendrochronological data. Ecol Appl 14:902–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bontemps JD, Bouriaud O (2014) Predictive approaches to forest site productivity: recent trends, challenges and future perspectives. Forestry 87:109–128. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpt034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins M, Booth BBB, Harris GR, Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Webb MJ (2006) Towards quantifying uncertainty in transient climate change. Clim Dyn 27:127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Didion M, Kupferschmid A, Zingg A, Fahse L, Bugmann H (2009) Gaining local accuracy while not losing generality—Extending the range of gap model applications. Can J For Res 39:1092–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobbertin M (2005) Tree growth as indicator of tree vitality and of tree reaction to environmental stress: a review. Eur J For Res 124:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flewelling JW, Pienaar LV (1981) Multiplicative regression with lognormal errors. For Sci 27:281–289Google Scholar
  10. Fontes L, Bontemps JD, Bugmann H, Van Oijen M, Gracia C, Kramer K, Lindner M, Rötzer T, Skovsgaard JP (2010) Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. For Syst 19:8–29Google Scholar
  11. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein H (1996) Multilevel statistical models. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. González JR, Palahí M, Pukkala T, Trasobares A (2005) Integrating fire risk considerations in forest management planning—a landscape level perspective. Lands Ecol 20(8):957–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. González-García M, Hevia A, Majada J, Calvo de Anta R, Barrio-Anta M (2015) Dynamic growth and yield model including environmental factors for Eucalyptus nitens (Deane & Maiden) Maiden short rotation woody crops in Northwest Spain. New Forest 46:387–407. doi: 10.1007/s11056-015-9467-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gracia CA, Tello E, Sabaté S, Bellot J (1999) GOTILWA: an integrated model of water dynamics and forest growth. In: Rodà F et al (eds) Ecology of Mediterranean evergreen oak forests. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanewinkel M, Zhou W, Schill C (2004) A neural network approach to identify forest stands susceptible to wind damage. For Ecol Manage 196:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Härkönen S, Pulkkinen M, Duursma R, Mäkelä A (2010) Estimating annual GPP, NPP and stem growth in Finland. For Ecol Manage 259:524–533. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollweg HD, Böhm U, Fast I, Hennemuth B, Keuler K, Keup-Thiel E, Lautenschlager M, Legutke S, Radtke K, Rockel B, Schubert M, Will A, Woldt M, Wunram C (2008) Ensemble Simulations over Europe with the Regional Climate Model CLM forced with IPCC AR4 Global Scenarios. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2003) A Danish example of optimal thinning strategies in mixed-species forest under changing growth conditions caused by climate change. For Ecol Man 180:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Strandman H, Väisänen H (2015) Changes in growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch induced by climate change in boreal conditions as related to prevailing growing conditions. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
  21. Kjellström E, Nikulin G, Hansson U, Strandberg G, Ullerstig A (2011) 21st century changes in the European climate: uncertainties derived from an ensemble of regional climate model simulations. Tellus A 63:24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer K, Buiteveld J, Forstreuter M, Geburek T, Leonardi S, Menozzi P, Povillon F, Schelhaas MJ, Teissier du Cross E, Vendramin GG, Van der Werf DC (2008) Bridging the gap between ecophysiological and genetic knowledge to assess the adaptive potential of European beech. Ecol Model 216:333–353. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matala J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Sievanen R, Kellömaki S (2005) Introducing effects of temperature and CO2 elevation on tree growth into a statistical growth and yield model. Ecol Model 181:173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monserud RA (1976) Simulation of forest tree mortality. For Sci 22:438–444Google Scholar
  25. Nord-Larsen T, Johannsen VK (2007) A state space approach to stand growth modelling of European beech. Ann For Sci 64(4):365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palahí M, Pukkala T, Miina J, Montero G (2003) Individual-tree growth and mortality models for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in north-east Spain. Ann For Sci 60:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pietsch SA, Hasenauer H, Thornton PE (2005) BGC-model parameters for tree species growing in central European forests. For Ecol Man 211(3):264–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pukkala T (2002) Multi-objective forest planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pukkala T, Kellomäki S (2012) Anticipatory vs adaptive optimization of stand management when tree growth and timber prices are stochastic. Forestry 85(4):463–472. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cps043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rasche L, Fahse L, Zingg A, Bugmann H (2011) Getting a virtual forester fit for the challenge of climatic change. J App Ecol 48(5):1174–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salas-González R, Houllier F, Lemoine B, Pignard G (2001) Forecasting wood resources on the basis of national forest inventory data: application to Pinus pinaster in southwestern France. Ann For Sci 58:785–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAS Institute Inc (2011) SAS/STAT® 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
  34. Schröder J, Von Gadow K (1999) Testing a new competition index for Maritime pine in northwestern Spain. Can J For Res 29:280–283Google Scholar
  35. Schütz JP, Zingg A (2010) Improving estimations of maximal stand density by combining Reineke’s size-density rule and the yield level, using the example of spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann For Sci 67:507. doi: 10.1051/forest/2010009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schütz JP, Götz M, Schmid W, Mandallaz D (2006) Vulnerability of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest stands to storms and consequences for silviculture. Eur J For Res 125:291–302. doi: 10.1007/s10342-006-0111-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seidl R, Lexer MJ, Jager D, Honninger K (2005) Evaluating the accuracy and generality of a hybrid patch model. Tree Phys 25(7):939–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seynave I, Gegout JC, Hervé JC, Dhôte JF, Drapier J, Bruno E, Dume G (2005) Picea abies site index prediction by environmental factors and understorey vegetation, a two-scale approach based on survey databases. Can J For Res 35(7):1669–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seynave I, Gégout JC, Hervé JC, Dhôte JF (2008) Is the spatial distribution of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) limited by its potential height growth? J Biogeogr 35:1851–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharma M, Subedi N, Ter-Mikaelian M, Parton J (2015) Modeling climatic effects on stand height/site index of plantation-grown jack pine and black spruce trees. For Sci 61(1):25–34. doi: 10.5849/forsci.13-190 Google Scholar
  41. SPSS Inc (2010) SPSS Base system syntax reference Guide Release 19.0Google Scholar
  42. Snowdon P (1991) A ratio estimator for bias correction in logarithmic regressions. Can J For Res 21:720–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Teepe R, Dilling H, Beese F (2003) Estimating water retention curves of forest soils from soil texture and bulk density. J Plant Nut Soil Sci 166:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1957) Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publ Climatol 10:183–311Google Scholar
  45. Thornton PE, Running SW, White MA (1997) Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J Hydrol 190:214–251. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03128-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trasobares A, Tomé M, Miina J (2004) Growth and yield model for Pinus halepensis Mill. in Catalonia, north-east Spain. For Ecol Man 203:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vanclay JK (1994) Modelling forest growth and yield: applications to mixed tropical forests. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Vitasse Y, François Ch, Delpierre N, Dufrêne E, Kremer A, Chuine I, Delzon S (2011) Assessing the effects of climate change on the phenology of European temperate trees. Agric For Meteorol 151:969–980. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walthert L, Graf U, Kammer A, Luster J, Pezzotta D, Zimmermann S, Hagedorn F (2010) Determination of organic and inorganic carbon, d13C, and nitrogen in soils containing carbonates after acid fumigation with HCl. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waring RH (1983) Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Adv Ecol Res 13:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster R, Rigling A, Walthert L (1996) An analysis of crown condition of Picea, Fagus and Abies in relation to environment in Switzerland. For 69:347–355Google Scholar
  52. WSL (2010) Swiss National Forest Inventory NFI. Data of the surveys 1983–1985, 1993–1995 and 2004–2006. 280510UU. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, BirmensdorfGoogle Scholar
  53. Wykoff RW (1990) A basal area increment model for individual conifers in the northern Rocky Mountains. For Sci 36:1077–1104Google Scholar
  54. Yousefpour R, Jacobsen JB, Meilby H, Thorsen BJ (2014) Knowledge update in adaptive management of forest resources under climate change: a Bayesian simulation approach. Ann For Sci 71:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuber T (2007) Untersuchungen zum Wasserhaushalt eines Fichtenwaldstandorts unter Berücksichtigung der Humusauflage. Dissertation, University of BayreuthGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoni Trasobares
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Zingg
    • 2
  • Lorenz Walthert
    • 2
  • Christof Bigler
    • 1
  1. 1.Forest Ecology, Institute of Terrestrial EcosystemsDepartment of Environmental Systems Science, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Institute for ForestSnow and Landscape ResearchBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations