Advertisement

Comparison of Wood Resource Assessment in National Forest Inventories

  • John Redmond
  • Thomas Gschwantner
  • Thomas Riedel
  • Iciar Alberdi
  • Claude Vidal
  • Michal Bosela
  • Christoph Fischer
  • Laura Hernández
  • Miloš Kučera
  • Andrius Kuliešis
  • Stein Tomter
  • Martin Vestman
  • Adrian Lanz
Chapter

Abstract

The collection of information on the approaches of wood resources assessment was essential to provide background details necessary to meet the objectives of COST Action Usewood. This chapter describes the processes that were used by COST Action Usewood to review the wood resource assessment methods used in NFI’s and gives an insight into the differences and similarities of definitions and methods applied by European NFIs. To address the specific objectives of COST Action Usewood, the activities of WG1 were organised into four sub-groups that would comprehensively describe the assessment of wood resources. The four sub-groups dealt with the topics of; Forest Available for Wood Supply, Stem Quality, Change Estimation and Other Wooded Land and Trees Outside Forest. The information provided through questionnaires and country reports provided the raw materials required to understand the differences between the definitions and components that make up the definitions that are applied nationally by the various NFIs. Results from the four sub-groups are presented outlining the diversity and similarities among the assessment of wood resources between countries.

Keywords

Questionnaire Country report Forest available for wood supply Stem quality Change estimation and other wooded land and trees outside forest 

References

  1. Alberdi I, Michalak R, Fischer C, Gasparini P, Brändli U, Tomter S, Kuliešis A, Snorrason A, Redmond J, Hernández L, Lanz A, Vidondo B, Stoyanov N, Stoyanova M, Vestman M, Barreiro S, Marin G, Cañellas I, Vidal C (2016) Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe. For Policy Econ 70:20–29Google Scholar
  2. Bosela, M, Redmond, J, Kučera, M, Marin, G, Adolt, R, Gschwantner, T, Petráš R, Korhonen K, Kuliešis A, Kulbokas G, Fischer, C, Lanz A (2015). Stem quality assessment in European National Forest Inventories: an opportunity for harmonised reporting? Ann For Sci 1–14Google Scholar
  3. Beers TW (1962) Components of forest growth. J For 60:245–248Google Scholar
  4. Brukas A, Jakubonis S, Kuliešis A, Rutkauskas A (2002) Lietuvos miškotvarka ir jos raida (Forest management planning and its development in Lithuania.). Naujasis lankas, KaunasGoogle Scholar
  5. Cienciala E, Tomppo E, Snorrason A, Broadmeadow M, Colin A, Dunger K, Exnerova Z, Lassere B, Petersson H, Priwitzer T, Sanchez Pena G, Ståhl G (2008) Preparing emission reporting form forests—Use of National Forest Inventories in European countries. Silva Fenn 42:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. COST Action E43 (2010) Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories in Europe: techniques for common reporting. www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/. Accessed 14 March 2016
  7. COST Action FP1001 (2014) Improving data and information on the potential supply of wood resources—A European Approach from multisource National Forest Inventories. https://sites.google.com/site/costactionfp1001/. Accessed 14 March 2016
  8. De Foresta H, Somarriba E, Temu A, Boulanger D, Feuilly H, Gauthier M (2013) Towards the assessment of trees outside forests. Forest resources assessment working paper 183. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO)Google Scholar
  9. Eriksson M (1995) Compatible and time-additive change component estimators for horizontal-point-sampled data. For Sci 41:796–822Google Scholar
  10. FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main report. FAO Forestry Paper 140. FAO, Rome, Italy 479 pGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO (2004) Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005: terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Programme working paper 83/E, FAO Forestry Department, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2010: terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Programme working paper 144/E, FAO Forestry Department, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. FAO (2012) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Programme working paper 180, FAO Forestry Department, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer C, Gasparini P, Vestman M, Redmond J, Pastor A, Hernandez L, Rizzo M, Alberdi I (2016) Joining criteria for harmonizing European forest available for wood supply estimates. Case studies from National Forest Inventories. Forests 7(5):104Google Scholar
  15. FOREST EUROPE, UNECE and FAO (2011) Sustainability of European forests: status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, FOREST EUROPE Liaison Unit, OsloGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabler K, Schadauer K, Tomppo E, Vidal C, Bonhomme C, McRoberts RE, Gschwantner T (2012) An enquiry on forest areas reported to the global forest resources assessment—is harmonisation needed? For Sci 58(3):201–213Google Scholar
  17. Gschwantner T, Schadauer K, Vidal C, Lanz A, Tomppo E, Di Cosmo L, Robert N, Englert Duursma D, Lawrence M (2009) Common tree definitions for National Forest Inventories in Europe. Silva Fenn 43:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuliešis A, Tomter SM, Vidal C, Lanz A (2016) Estimates of stemwood increments in forest resources: comparison of different approaches in forest inventory: consequences for international reporting: case study European forests. Ann For Sci (submitted)Google Scholar
  20. Martin GL (1982) A method for estimating ingrowth on permanent horizontal sample plots. For Sci 28:110–114Google Scholar
  21. McRoberts RE, Holden GR, Nelson MD, Liknes GD, Gormanson DD (2006) Using satellite imagery as ancillary data for increasing the precision of estimates for the Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the U.S. Forest Service. Can J For Res 36:2968–2980Google Scholar
  22. Roesch FA, Green EJ, Scott CT (1989) New compatible estimators for survivor growth and ingrowth from remeasured horizontal point samples. For Sci 35:281–293Google Scholar
  23. Tomppo E, Olsson H, Ståhl G, Nilsson M, Hagner O, Katila M (2008) Combining national forest inventory field plots and remote sensing data for forest databases. Remote Sens Environ 112:1982–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tomppo E, Gschwantner T, Lawrence M, McRoberts RE (eds) (2010) National Forest Inventories—Pathways for common reporting. Springer, Berlin, 612 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomter S, Gasparini P, Gschwantner T, Hennig P, Kulbokas G, Kuliešis A, Polley H, Robert N, Rondeux J, Tabacchi G, Tomppo E (2012) Establishing bridging functions for harmonizing growing stock estimates: examples from European National Forest Inventories. Forest Sci 58:224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. UNECE/FAO (2000) Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Global forest resources assessment 2000. Main report. Geneva timber and forest study papers, No. 17. United Nations, New York, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Deusen PC, Dell TR, Thomas CE (1986) Volume growth estimation from permanent horizontal points. For Sci 32:415–422Google Scholar
  28. Vidal C, Lanz A, Tomppo E, Schadauer K, Gschwantner T, di Cosmo L, Robert N (2008) Establishing forest inventory reference definitions for forest and growing stock: a study towards common reporting. Silva Fenn 42(2):247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vidal C, Vestman M, Schnell S, Berger A, Ginzler C, Waser LT, Alberdi I (2016) A new international land classification for enabling the quantification of wood resources outside forests. For Policy Econ (under review)Google Scholar
  30. Wikström P, Edenius L, Elfving B, Eriksson LO, Lämås T, Sonesson J, Öhman K, Wallerman J, Waller C, Klintebäck F (2011) The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. MCFNS 3(2):87–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Redmond
    • 1
  • Thomas Gschwantner
    • 2
  • Thomas Riedel
    • 3
  • Iciar Alberdi
    • 4
  • Claude Vidal
    • 5
    • 6
  • Michal Bosela
    • 7
  • Christoph Fischer
    • 8
  • Laura Hernández
    • 4
  • Miloš Kučera
    • 9
  • Andrius Kuliešis
    • 10
  • Stein Tomter
    • 11
  • Martin Vestman
    • 12
  • Adrian Lanz
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture, Food and the MarineJohnstown Castle EstateCo. WexfordIreland
  2. 2.Federal Research and Training Centre for ForestsNatural Hazards and Landscape (BFW)ViennaAustria
  3. 3.Thünen Institute of Forest EcosystemsBraunschweigGermany
  4. 4.National Institute for Agriculture Research, INIA-CIFORMadridSpain
  5. 5.European Commission, JRC-IESIspraItaly
  6. 6.French Ministry of Agriculture, Agrofood and ForestryParisFrance
  7. 7.National Forest CentreForest Research InstituteZvolenSlovakia
  8. 8.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape ResearchBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  9. 9.Forest Management Institute Brandys nad LabemBrandys nad LabemCzech Republic
  10. 10.Lithuanian State Forest ServiceVilniusLithuania
  11. 11.Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchAkershusNorway
  12. 12.Swedish University of AgricultureUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations