Future Challenges for Woody Biomass Projections

  • Klemens Schadauer
  • Susana Barreiro
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
Chapter
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 29)

Abstract

Many drivers affect woody biomass projections including forest available for wood supply, market behavior, forest ownership, distributions by age and yield classes, forest typologies resulting from different edaphic, climatic conditions, and last but not least, how these factors are incorporated into projection systems. Net annual increment has been considered a useful variable for estimating future wood and biomass supply, but it can be misleading. In Europe, two different approaches have been used: a common European-level tool for all countries (“top-down” approach); and national tools (“bottom-up” approach). The trade-offs are that the “top-down” approach produces comparable results among countries, but ignores most of the topographic, climatic, vegetative and socio-economic conditions that are unique to countries and regions. The “bottom-up” approach better accommodates national and regional conditions but at the cost of comparability among country level results. A brief discussion of how these issues are handled in North America provides insights into different approaches and their linkages to national circumstances regarding country sizes, ownerships and general political frameworks. Another challenge lies in accommodating climate change and uncertainty in projections. Finally, working closely with experts from the demand side to minimize possible misunderstandings is also required. The first step towards increasing comparability of results from country-level projection systems is to understand the differences among these tools. Only then, can progress be made in terms of harmonizing the input and output variables or even progressing towards a common methodological approach and software structure.

References

  1. Alberdi I, Michalak R, Fischer C et al (2016) Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe. Forest Policy Econ 70:20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antón-Fernández C, Astrup R (2012) Empirical harvest models and their use in regional business-as-usual scenarios of timber supply and carbon stock development. Scand J Forest Res:1–14. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2011.644576
  3. Cao QV (2006) Predictions of individual-tree and whole-stand attributes for loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manag 236:342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crookston NL, Dixon GE (2005) The forest vegetation simulator: a review of the structure, content, and applications. Comput Electron Agr 49:60–80. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/18474. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
  5. Fahlvik N, Wikström P, Elfving B (2014) Evaluation of growth models used in the Swedish Forest Planning System Heureka. Silva Fenn 48. doi: 10.14214/sf.1013
  6. FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of European Forests 2015Google Scholar
  7. Fortin M, Langevin L (2012) Stochastic or deterministic single-tree models: is there any difference in growth predictions? Ann For Sci 69:271–282. doi: 10.1007/s13595-011-0112-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortin M, Bédarda S, DeBloisa J, Meunierb S (2009) Assessing and testing prediction uncertainty for single tree-based models: a case study applied to northern hardwood stands in southern Québec, Canada. Ecol Model 220:2770–2781. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortin M, Robert N, Manso R (2016) Uncertainty assessment of large-scale forest growth predictions based on a transition-matrix model in Catalonia. Ann For Sci 73:871. doi: 10.1007/s13595-016-0538-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gertner G (1987) Approximating precision in simulation projections: an efficient alternative to Monte Carlo methods. For Sci 33:230–239Google Scholar
  11. Gertner G, Dzialowy PJ (1984) Effects of measurement errors on an individual tree-based growth projection system. Can J For Res 14:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holm S (1981) Analys av metoder för tillväxtprognoser i samband med långsiktiga avverkningsberäkningar. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biometry and Forest Management, Working Paper. 22 p. [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  13. Kangas A (1997) On the prediction bias and variance of long-term growth predictions. For Ecol Manag 96:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kangas AS (1999) Methods for assessing uncertainty of growth and yield predictions. Can J For Res 29:1357–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kurz WA, Apps MJ (2006) Developing Canada’s national forest carbon monitoring, accounting and reporting system to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Mit Adapt Strat Glob Change 11:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindstrom MJ, Bates D (1988) Newton–Raphson and EM algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data. J Am Stat Assoc 83:1014–1022Google Scholar
  17. Lundmark T, Bergh J, Hofer P et al (2014) Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 5:557–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäkinen A (2010) Uncertainty in forest simulators and forest planning systems. Dissertationes Forestalis 97, 38p. doi: 10.14214/df.97
  19. Mantau U, Gschwantner T, Paletto A et al (2016) From inventory to consumer biomass availability – the ITOC-model. Ann For Sci. doi: 10.1007/s13595-016-0582-1 Google Scholar
  20. McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. McRoberts RE, Westfall JA (2014) Effects of uncertainty in model predictions of individual tree volume on larger area volume estimates. For Sci 60:34–42Google Scholar
  22. Mowrer HT (1991) Estimating components of propagated variance in growth simulation model projections. Can J For Res 21:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mowrer HT, Frayer WE (1986) Variance propagation in growth and yield projections. Can J For Res 16:1196–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Natural Resources Canada (2015) Forestry. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/selected-thematic-maps/16874. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
  25. Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Mile PD, Pugh SA (2014) Forest Resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA Assessment. General Technical Report WO-91. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 218p. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/47322. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
  26. Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (eds.) (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, HayamaGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (1995) Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. J Comp Graph Stat 4:12–35Google Scholar
  28. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rinaldi F, Jonsson R, Sallnäs O, Trubins R (2015) Behavioral modelling in a decision support system. Forests 6(2):311–327. doi: 10.3390/f6020311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vidal C, Sallnäs O, Redmond J, Alberdi I, Barreiro S, Hernández L, Schadauer K (2016) Introduction. In: Vidal C, Alberdi I, Hernández L, Redmond J (eds) National forest inventories: assessment of wood availability and use. Springer, Cham, pp 1–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44015-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walker WE, Harremo€ees P, Rotmans J, Van Der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer Von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty – a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolfinger R, O’Connell M (1993) Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudolikelihood approach. J Statist Comput Simul 48:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang S, Amateis RL, Burkhart HE (1997) Constraining individual tree diameter increment and survival models for loblolly pine plantations. For Sci 43:414–423Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klemens Schadauer
    • 1
  • Susana Barreiro
    • 2
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
    • 3
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest InventoryFederal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Forest Research Centre (CEF), School of AgricultureUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra)WageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest ServiceSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations