Assessing Knowledge Ambiguity in the Creation of a Model Based on Expert Knowledge and Comparison with the Results of a Landscape Succession Model in Central Labrador

  • Frédérik DoyonEmail author
  • Brian R. Sturtevant
  • Michael J. Papaik
  • Andrew Fall
  • Brian Miranda
  • Daniel D. Kneeshaw
  • Christian Messier
  • Marie-Josée Fortin
  • Patrick M. A. James


Sustainable forest management (SFM) recognizes that the spatial and temporal patterns generated at different scales by natural landscape and stand dynamics processes should serve as a guide for managing the forest within its range of natural variability (Landres et al. 1999; Gauthier et al. 2008). Landscape simulation modeling is a powerful tool that can help encompass such complexity and support SFM planning (Messier et al. 2003). Forecasting the complex behaviors of a forested landscape involving patterns and processes that interact at multiple temporal and spatial scales poses significant challenges (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Empirical evidence for the functioning of key elements, such as succession and disturbance regimes, is crucial for model parameterization (Mladenoff 2004). However, reliable empirical data about the forest vegetation dynamics that arise in response to forest management and other disturbances may be scarce, particularly in remote areas where harvesting activity has been historically limited.


Forest Type Sustainable Forest Management Ecological Region Mature Stand Disturbance Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bajzak D (1973) Biophysical land classification of the Lake Melville area, Labrador. Environment Canada, Canadian Forest Service, St. John’s, Information Report No. NX-88Google Scholar
  2. Bajzak D, Roberts BA (1984) Mapping land types for forest evaluation in Lake Melville area, Labrador, Canada. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of IUFRO Working Parties No. 1.02-06 and No. 1.02-10 on Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Forest Sites with Special Reference to Soil, 10–15 September 1984, Birmensdorf, Switzerland. IUFRO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  3. Batterson M, Liverman D (1995) Landscapes of Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Natural Resources, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, Geological Survey Report 95–3Google Scholar
  4. Berninger K, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2009) The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM—differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. J Environ Manage 90:740–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drescher M, Perera AH (2010a) Comparing two sets of forest cover change knowledge used in forest landscape management planning. J Environ Plan Manage 53(5):591–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drescher M, Perera AH (2010b) A network approach for evaluating and communicating forest change models. J Appl Ecol 47(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drescher M, Perera AH, Buse LJ et al (2006) Identifying uncertainty in practitioner knowledge of boreal forest succession in Ontario through a workshop approach. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste Marie, Forest Research Report 165Google Scholar
  8. Drescher M, Perera AH, Buse LJ et al (2008) Uncertainty in expert knowledge of forest succession: A case study from boreal Ontario. For Chron 84:194–209Google Scholar
  9. Elson LT, Simon NPP, Kneeshaw D (2007) Regeneration differences between fire and clearcut logging in southeastern Labrador: a multiple spatial scale analysis. Can J For Res 37:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford DN, Sterman JD (1998) Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. Syst Dynam Rev 14(4):309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forestry Canada Fire Danger Group (1992) Development and structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction System. Information Report ST-X-3. Forestry Canada, Science and Sustainable Development Directorate, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsyth J, Innes L, Deering K, Moores L (2003) Forest Ecosystem Strategy Plan for Forest Management District 19 Labrador/Nitassinan. Innu Nation and Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Northwest RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster DR (1983) The history and pattern of fire in the boreal forest of southeastern Labrador. Can J Bot 61:2459–2471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster DR (1984) Phytosociological description of the forest vegetation of southeastern Labrador. Can J Bot 62:899–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster DR (1985) Vegetation development following fire in Picea mariana (black spruce)–Pleurozium forests of southeastern Labrador, Canada. J Ecol 73:517–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foster DR, King GA (1986) Vegetation pattern and diversity in S.E. Labrador, Canada. Betula papyrifera (birch) forest development in relation to fire history and physiography. J Ecol 74:465–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gauthier S, Vaillancourt MA, Leduc A et al (2008) Aménagement écosystémique en foret boréale. Presse de l’Université du Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunderson LH, Holling C (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR, Mladenoff DJ et al (2000) Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Can J For Res 30:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafson EJ, Sturtevant BR, Fall A (2006) A collaborative, iterative approach to transfer modeling technology to land managers. In: Perera AH, Buse LJ, Crow TR (eds) Forest landscape ecology: Transferring knowledge to practice. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, pp 123–134Google Scholar
  21. Johnson CJ, Gillingham MP (2005) An evaluation of mapped species distribution models used for conservation planning. Environ Conserv 32(2):117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ (1999) Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol Appl 9:1179–1188Google Scholar
  23. Mallik AU (2003) Conifer regeneration problems in boreal and temperate forests with ericaceous understory: role of disturbance, seedbed limitation, and keystone species change. Crit Rev Plant Sci 22:341–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Messier C, Fortin M-J, Smiegelow F et al (2003) Modelling tools to assess the sustainability of forest management scenarios. In: Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW, Adamoviicz WL (eds) Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp 531–580Google Scholar
  25. Mladenoff DJ (2004) LANDIS and forest landscape models. Ecol Modell 180(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murray JV, Goldizen AW, O’Leary RA et al (2009) How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabies Petrogale penicillata. J Appl Ecol 46(4):842–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newfoundland Forest Service (1995) Temporary sample plot program. Newfoundland Forest Service, St. John’s, Draft 28 February 2002Google Scholar
  28. Roberts BA, Simon NPP, Derring KW (2006) The forests and woodlands of Labrador, Canada: ecology, distribution and future management. Ecol Res 21:868–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robertson MP, Peter CI, Villet MH, Ripley BS (2003) Comparing models for predicting species’ potential distributions: a case study using correlative and mechanistic predictive modelling techniques. Ecol Modell 164(2–3):153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheller RM, Domingo JB, Sturtevant BR et al (2007) Design, development, and application of LANDIS-II, a spatial landscape simulation model with flexible temporal and spatial resolution. Ecol Modell 201:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ (2004) A forest growth and biomass module for a landscape simulation model, LANDIS: Design, validation, and application. Ecol Modell 180:211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  33. Simon NPP, Schwab FE (2005a) The response of conifer and broadleaved trees and shrubs to wildfire and clearcut logging in the boreal forests of central Labrador. Northern J Appl For 22:35–41Google Scholar
  34. Simon NPP, Schwab FE (2005b) Plant community structure following wildfire in the subarctic forests of Labrador. Northern J Appl For 22:229–235Google Scholar
  35. SPSS Inc (2009) PASW Statistics 18, Version 18.0.0 for Windows. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Sturtevant BR, Fall A, Kneeshaw DD et al (2007) A toolkit modeling approach for sustainable forest management planning: achieving balance between science and local needs. Ecol Soc 12:7. Available from: (accessed February 2011)
  37. Sturtevant BR, Scheller RM, Miranda BR et al (2009) Simulating dynamic and mixed-severity fire regimes: A process-based fire extension for LANDIS-II. Ecol Modell 220:3380–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ward BC, Mladenoff DJ, Scheller RM (2005) Simulating landscape-level effects of constraints to public forest regeneration harvests due to adjacent residential development in northern Wisconsin. For Sci 51:616–632Google Scholar
  39. Wiken EB (1986) Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 19, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, HullGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédérik Doyon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian R. Sturtevant
    • 2
  • Michael J. Papaik
    • 3
  • Andrew Fall
    • 4
    • 5
  • Brian Miranda
    • 2
  • Daniel D. Kneeshaw
    • 6
  • Christian Messier
    • 6
  • Marie-Josée Fortin
    • 7
  • Patrick M. A. James
    • 8
  1. 1.Département de Sciences Sociales, Secteur Foresterie, Centre d’Étude de la Forêt (CEF)Université du Québec en OutaouaisGatineauCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest ServiceRhinelanderUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologySonoma State UniversityRohnert ParkUSA
  4. 4.Gowlland Technologies LtdLasqueti IslandCanada
  5. 5.Department of Resource and Environmental ManagementSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  6. 6.Département des Sciences Biologiques, Centre d’Étude de la Forêt (CEF), Institut des Sciences EnvironnementalesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  7. 7.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations