The Role of Managed Forest Ecosystems: A Modeling Based Approach

  • Angelo Nolè
  • Alessio Collalti
  • Marco Borghetti
  • Marta Chiesi
  • Gherardo Chirici
  • Federico Magnani
  • Serena Marras
  • Fabio Maselli
  • Costantino Sirca
  • Donatella Spano
  • Riccardo Valentini
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

Regional approaches to estimate the carbon budget of Italian forest ecosystems using Process-Based Models (PBMs), have been applied by several national institutions and researchers. Gross and net primary productivity (GPP and NPP) have been estimated through the PBMs simulations of carbon, water, and elemental cycles driven by remotely sensed data set and ancillary data. In particular the results of the GPP and NPP estimations provided by the implementation of two hybrid models are presented. The first modeling approach, based on the integration of two widely used models (C-fix and BIOME-BGC), has been applied to simulate monthly GPP and NPP values of all Italian forests for the decade 1999–2008. The approach, driven by remotely sensed SPOT-VEGETATION ten-day Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) images and meteorological data, provided a NPP map of Italian forests reaching maximum values of about 900 g C m−2 year−1. The second modeling approach is based on the implementation of a modified version of the 3-PG model running on a daily time step to produce daily estimates of GPP and NPP. The model is driven by MODIS remotely sensed vegetation indexes and meteorological data, and parameterized for specific soil and land cover characteristics. Average annual GPP and NPP maps of Italian forests and average annual values for different forest types according to Corine Land Cover 2000 classification are reported.

Keywords

Normalize Difference Vegetation Index Forest Type Standing Volume Basic Wood Density Normalize Difference Vegetation Index Image 
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.

References

  1. Alessandri A, Navarra A (2008) On the coupling between vegetation and rainfall inter-annual anomalies: possible contributions to seasonal rain fall predictability over land areas. Geophys Res Lett 35:L02718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldocchi DD, Harley PC (1995) Scaling carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange form leaf to canopy in a deciduous forest. II. Model testing and application. Plant Cell Environ 18:1157–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battaglia M, Sands P (1998) Process-based forest productivity models and their applications in forest management. For Ecol Manage 102:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossel H (1994) Modeling and simulation. AK Peters Ltd, WellesleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botkin D, Janak J, Wallis J (1972) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J Ecol 60:849–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brang P, Courbaud B, Fischer A, Kissling-Naf I, Pettenella D, Schoneberger W et al (2002) Developing indicators for the sustainable management of mountain forests using a modelling approach. For Policy Econ 4:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bugmann H (2001) A review of forest gap models. Clim Change 51:259–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiesi M, Maselli F, Moriondo M, Fibbi L, Bindi M, Running SW (2007) Application of BIOME-BGC to simulate Mediterranean forest processes. Ecol Model 206:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiesi M, Fibbi L, Genesio L, Gioli B, Magno R, Maselli F, Moriondo M, Vaccari F (2011) Integration of ground and satellite data to model Mediterranean forest processes. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 13:504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collalti A, Perugini L, Santini M, Chiti T, Nolè A, Matteucci G, Valentini R (2014) A process-based model to simulate growth in forests with complex structure: evaluation and use of 3D-CMCC Forest Ecosystem Model in a deciduous forest in Central Italy. Ecol Model 272(24):362–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coops NC, Waring RH (2001) Estimating forest productivity in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon using a satellite driven process model, 3-PGS. Can J For Res 31:143–154. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-31-1-143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coops NC, Waring RH, Landsberg JJ (1998) Assessing forest productivity in Australia and New Zealand using a physiologically-based model driven with averaged monthly weather data and satellite-derived estimates of canopy photosynthetic capacity. For Ecol Manage 104(1–3):113–127. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00248-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coops NC, Waring RH, Law BE (2005) Assessing the past and future distribution and productivity of ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest using a process model, 3-PG. Ecol Model 183(1):107–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coops NC, Black TA, Jassal RS, Trofymow JA, Morgenstern K (2007) Comparison of MODIS, eddy covariance determined and physiologically modeled gross primary production (GPP) in a Douglas-fir forest stand. Remote Sens Environ 107:385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federici S, Vitullo M, Tulipano S, De Lauretis R, Seufert G (2008) An approach to estimate carbon stocks change in forest carbon pools under the UNFCCC: the Italian case. iForest 1:86–95Google Scholar
  16. Gallaun H, Zanchi G, Nabuurs GJ, Hengeveld G, Schardt M, Verkerk PJ (2010) EU-wide maps of growing stock and above-ground biomass in forests based on remote sensing and field measurements. For Ecol Manag 260:252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey K (1983) Compartmental models and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Grace J, Lloyd J, McIntyre J, Miranda A, Meir P, Miranda H, Moncrieff J, Massheder J, Wright I, Gash J (1995) Fluxes of carbon dioxide and water vapour over an undisturbed tropical forest in south-west Amazonia. Glob Change Biol 1:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haefner J (2005) Modeling biological systems: principles and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. He (2008) Forest landscape models: definitions, characterization, and classification. For Ecol Manage 254:484–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimmins J (2008) From science to stewardship: harnessing forest ecology in the service of society. For Ecol Manage 256:1625–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landsberg J, Coops N (1999) Modeling forest productivity across large areas and long periods. Nat Res Model 12:383–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalized model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manage 95(3):209–228. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00026-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leemans R, Prentice I (1989) FORSKA, a general forest succession model. Institute of Ecological Botany, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  25. Makela A, Landsberg J, Ek A, Burk T, Ter-Mikaelian M, Agren G et al (2000) Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of the art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol 20(289):298Google Scholar
  26. Makela A, Pulkkinen M, Kolari P, Lagergren F, Berbigier P, Lindroth A, Loustau D, Nikinmaa E, Vesala T, Hari P (2008) An empirical model of stand GPP with the LUE approach: analysis of eddy covariance data at five contrasting conifer sites in Europe. Global Change Biol 14:92–108Google Scholar
  27. Maselli F, Papale D, Puletti N, Chirici G, Corona P (2009a) Combining remote sensing and ancillary data to monitor the gross productivity of water-limited forest ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 113:657–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maselli F, Chiesi M, Moriondo M, Fibbi L, Bindi M, Running SW (2009b) Modelling the forest carbon budget of a Mediterranean region through the integration of ground and satellite data. Ecol Mod 220:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marras S, Pyles RD, Sirca C, Paw UKT, Snyder RL, Duce P, Spano D (2011) Evaluation of the advanced Canopy-Atmosphere-Soil Algorithm (ACASA) model performance over Mediterranean maquis ecosystem. Agric For Meteorol 151:730–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myneni RB, Williams DL (1994) On the relationship between FAPAR and NDVI. Remote Sens Environ 49:200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nolè A, Collalti A, Magnani F, Duce P, Ferrara A, Mancino G, Marras S, Sirca C, Spano D, Borghetti M (2013) Assessing temporal variation of primary and ecosystem production in two Mediterranean forests using a modified 3-PG model. Ann For Sci 70:729–741. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0315-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nolè A, Ferrara A, Law BE, Magnani F, Matteucci G, Ripullone F, Borghetti M (2009) Application of the 3-PGS model to assess carbon accumulation in forest ecosystems at a regional level. Can J For Res 39(9):1647–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pacala S, Canham C, Silander J (1993) Forest models defined by field measurements: I. The design of a northeastern forest simulator. Can J For Res 23:1980–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peng C, Li J, Dang Q, Apps M, Jiang H (2002) TRIPLEX: a generic hybrid model for predicting forest growth and carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Ecol Model 153:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pyles RD, Weare BC, Paw U, Gustafso KTW (2003) Coupling between the University of California, Davis, Advanced Canopy–Atmosphere–Soil Algorithm (ACASA) and MM5: Preliminary Results for July 1998 for Western-North America. J Appl Meteorol 42:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pretzsch H, Grote R, Reineking B, Rotzer T, Seifert S (2008) Models for forest ecosystem management: a European perspective. Ann Bot 101:1065–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Running H, Hunt ERJ (1993) Generalization of a ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an application for global-scale models. In: Ehleringer JR, Field CB (eds) Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sands PJ, Landsberg JJ (2002) Parameterization of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. For Ecol Manage 163:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shugart H (1984) A theory of forest dynamics: the ecological implications of forest succession models. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Staudt K, Serafimovich A, Siebicke L, Pyles RD, Falge E (2011) Vertical structure of evapotranspiration at a forest site (a case study). Agric For Meteorol 151:709–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tickle PK, Coops NC, Hafner SD, The Bago Science Team (2001) Assessing Forest Productivity at local scales across a native eucalypt forest using a process model, 3PG-SPATIAL. For Ecol Manage 152(1–3):275–291. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00609-5
  42. Vacchiano G, Magnani F, Collalti A (2012) Modeling Italian forests: state of the art and future challenges. iForest, e1–e8Google Scholar
  43. Veroustraete F, Sabbe H, Eerens H (2002) Estimation of carbon mass fluxes over Europe using the C-Fix model and Euroflux data. Remote Sens Environ 83:376–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW, Nemani RR (2000) Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interact 4:1–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang J, Chu Z, Ge Y, Zhou X, Jiang H, Chang J et al (2008) TRIPLEX model testing and application for predicting forest growth and biomass production in the subtropical forest zone of China’s Zhejiang Province. Ecol Model 219:264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Nolè
    • 1
  • Alessio Collalti
    • 2
  • Marco Borghetti
    • 1
  • Marta Chiesi
    • 3
  • Gherardo Chirici
    • 4
  • Federico Magnani
    • 5
  • Serena Marras
    • 7
    • 8
  • Fabio Maselli
    • 3
  • Costantino Sirca
    • 7
    • 8
  • Donatella Spano
    • 7
    • 8
  • Riccardo Valentini
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Agricultural, Forest, Food and Environmental Sciences (SAFE)University of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  2. 2.Impacts on Agriculture, Forest and Natural Ecosystem Division (IAFENT)Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Changes (CMCC)ViterboItaly
  3. 3.IBIMET-CNRSesto FiorentinoItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio (DIBT)University of MolisePescheItaly
  5. 5.Department of Agricultural ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  6. 6.Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems (DIBAF)University of TusciaViterboItaly
  7. 7.Impacts on Agriculture, Forest and Natural Ecosystem Division (IAFENT)Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Changes (CMCC)SassariItaly
  8. 8.Department of Science for Nature and Environmental Resources (DIPNET)University of SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations