Harmonization Tests

  • Gherardo ChiriciEmail author
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
  • Susanne Winter
  • Anna Barbati
  • Urs-Beat Brändli
  • Meinrad Abegg
  • Jana Beranova
  • Jacques Rondeux
  • Roberta Bertini
  • Iciar Alberdi Asensio
  • Sonia Condés
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 20)


Chapter 5 reports the results of testing the proposed procedures for harmonizing estimates of indicators for six of the seven essential features of forest biodiversity. Twenty indicators were tested using data from the common database.In general, positive results were obtained for forest categories, forest structure, forest age, deadwood, and naturalness; the results were less positive for ground vegetation because of the considerable differences in definitions and data acquisition methods. Of importance is, that the test focused on assessing harmonization procedures rather than on producing comprehensive estimates for particular countries or forest categories.


Ground Vegetation National Forest Inventory Decay Class Forest Category Common Database 
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. Bailey, R. G. (1976). Ecoregions of the United States (map). Ogden: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. G. (1983). Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management, 7, 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbati, A., & Marchetti, M. (2004). Forest Types for Biodiversity Assessment (FTBAs) in Europe: the revised classification scheme. In M. Marchetti (Ed.), Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe – from ideas to operationality. EFI Proceedings No. 51. pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
  4. Barbati, A., Corona, P., & Marchetti, M. (2007). A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: the case of European forest types. Plant Biosystems, 141(1), 93–103.Google Scholar
  5. BirdLife international. (2000). Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge: Lynx Ediciones and BirdLife International.Google Scholar
  6. Bohn, U., Gollub, G., & Hettwer, C. (2000). Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. Bonn: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
  7. Bradshaw, R. H. W., & Møller, P. F. (2004). European forest types for biodiversity assessment. A qualitative approach. In M. Marchetti (Ed.), Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe – from ideas to operationality. EFI Proceedings No. 51. pp. 127–133.Google Scholar
  8. Braun-Blanquet, J. (1965). Plant sociology; the study of plant communities. London: Halner.Google Scholar
  9. Corona, P., & Ferrara, A. (1992). Un metodo semplificato per la trasformazione delle tavole a doppia entrata per la cubatura di fusti interi in tavole assortimentali. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 3, 144–157.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, C. E., Moss, D., & Hill, M. (2004). EUNIS habitat classification. Revised 2004. Report to the European Environmental Agency. Available on-line at: Accessed December 2010.Google Scholar
  11. EEA (2006). European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management and reporting. EEA Technical report No. 9/2006.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, R., Granke, O., Chirici, G., Meyer, P., Seidling, W., Stofer, S., Corona, P., Marchetti, M., & Travaglini, D. (2009). Background, main results and conclusions from a test phase for biodiversity assessments on intensive forest monitoring plots in Europe. iForest, 2, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gore, J. A., & Patersson, W. A. (1986). Mass of downed wood in northern hardwood forests in New Hampshire: potential effects of forest management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 16, 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helms, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). The dictionary of forestry (p. 210). Bethesda: Society of American Foresters. ISBN 0-939970-73-2.Google Scholar
  15. ICP – International Co-operative programme on assessment and monitoring of air pollution effects on forests. Plant code lists: Accessed July 2009.
  16. Kändler, G., & Riemer, U. (2005). Der Zusammenhang zwischen Wuchsleistung und Standort bei Fichte, Tanne und Buche auf den wichtigsten Standortseinheiten des Südschwarzwaldes. In K. von Teuffel, M. Baumgarten, M. Hanewinkel, W. Konold, U. H. Sauter, H. Spiecker, & K. von Wilpert (Eds.), Waldumbau für eine zukunftsorientierte Waldwirtschaft (p. 422). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kowarik, I. (1990). Natürlichkeit, Naturnähe und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien. In H. Sukopp, S. Hejný, & I. Kowarik (Eds.), Urban ecology. The Hague: SBP Academic Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Larsson, T.-B., Svensson, L., Angelstam, P., Balent, G., Barbati, A., Bijlsma, J. R., Boncina, A., Brad-shaw, R., Bücking, W., Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Diaci, J., Dias, S., Ellenberg, H., Fernandes, F. M., Fernàndez-Gonzalez, F., Ferris, R., Frank, G., Møller, PF., Giller, P. S., Gustafsson, L., Halbritter, K., Hall, S., Hansson, L., Innes, J., Jactel, H., Keannel Doppertin, M., Klein, M., Marchetti, M., Mohren, F., Niemelä, P., O’Halloran, J., Rametsteiner, E., Rego, F., Scheidegger, C., Scotti, R., Sjöberg, K., Spanos, I., Spanos, K., Standovár, T., Tømmerås, Å., Trakolis, D., Uuttera, J., Walsh, P. M., Vande-kerkhove, K., Watt, A. D, & VenDenMeersschaut, D. (2001). Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. A report from the FAIR project “Indicators for monitoring and evaluation of forest biodiversity in Europe” CT97-3575 within the EU Commission RTD Programme. Ecological Bulletin, 50, 150.Google Scholar
  19. Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Seidl, R., Delzon, S., Corona. P., Kolström, M., Lexer, M. J., & Marchetti, M. (2009). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023.Google Scholar
  20. McRoberts, R. E., Winter, S., Chirici, G., & LaPoint, E. (submitted). Assessing forest naturalness. Forest Science.Google Scholar
  21. McRoberts, R. E., Tomppo, E. O., Schadauer, K., Vidal, C., Ståhl, G., Chirici, G., & Smith, W. B. (2009). Harmonizing national forest inventories. Journal of Forestry, 107, 179–187.Google Scholar
  22. McRoberts, R. E., Winter, S., Chirici, G., Hauk, E., Pelz, D. R., Moser, W. K., & Hatfield, M. A. (2008). Large-scale spatial patterns of forest structural diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38, 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N., Koch, E., Aasa, A., Ahas, R., Alm-Kübler, K., Bissolli, P., Braslavská, O., Briede, A., Chmielewski, F. M., Crepinsek, Z., Curnel, Y., Dahl, Å., Defila, C., Donnelly, A., Filella, Y., Jatczak, K., Måge, F., Mestre, A., Nordli, Ø., Peñuelas, J., Pirinen, P., Remisová, V., Scheifinger, H., Striz, M., Susnik, A., Wielgolaski, F. -E., v Vliet, A., Zach, S., & Zust, A. (2006). European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change Biology, 12, 1969–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noest, V., van der Maarel, E., van der Meulen, F., & van der Laan, D. (1989). Optimum-transformation of plant-species cover-abundance values. Vegetatio, 83(1–2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pardé, J. (1956). Une notion pleine d’intérêt: La hauteur dominante des peuplements forestiers. Revue Forestière Française, 12, 850–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearman, P., Penskar, M. R., Schools, E. H., & Enander, H. D. (2006). Identifying potential indicators of conservation value using natural heritage occurrence data. Ecological Applications, 16 (1), 186–201.Google Scholar
  27. Rodwell, J., Schaminée, J., Mucina, L., Pignatti, S., Dring, J., & Moss, D. (2002). The diversity of European vegetation. An overview of phytosociological alliances and their relationships to EUNIS habitat. Wageningen: Naturbeheer envisserij/European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  28. Rondeux, J., Bertini, R., Bastrup, A., Corona, P., McRoberts, RE., Sanchez, C., Ståhl, G., Winter, S., & Chirici, G. (submitted). Assessing deadwood using harmonised national forest inventory data. Forest Science.Google Scholar
  29. Rondeux, J., Bertini, R., Bastrup-Birk, A., Corona, P., McRoberts, R. E., Sanchez, C., Ståhl, G., Winter, S., & Chirici, G. (submitted). Harmonised deadwood assessments using national forest inventory data. Forest Science.Google Scholar
  30. San Miguel, A. (Coord.). (2009). Los Pastos de la Comunidad de Madrid. Tipología, Cartografía y Evaluación. Serie Técnica de Medio Ambiente no 4. Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid.Google Scholar
  31. Shannon, C. E. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ståhl, G. (2003). Presence/absence sampling as a substitute for cover assessment in vegetation monitoring. In P. Corona et al. (Eds.), Advances in forest inventory for sustainable forest management and biodiversity monitoring (pp. 137–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Ståhl, G., Cienciala, E., Chirici, G., Gabler, K., Lans, A., Vidal, C., Winter, S., McRoberts, R. E., Schadauer, K., & Tomppo, E. (submitted). Bridging national and reference definitions for harmonised provision of forest statistics. Forest Science.Google Scholar
  34. Sukopp, H., Hejný, S., & Kovarik, I. (Eds.). (1990). Urban ecology: plans and plan communities in urban environments. The Hague: SPB Academic Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Tomppo, E., Gschwanter, T., Lawrence, M., & McRoberts, R. E. (2010). National forest inventories: pathways for common reporting (671 pp). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Forest Service (2007). Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide, Vol. 1: Field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots, version 4.0. Northern Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (292 pp.).Google Scholar
  37. 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 Fennica, 42(2), 247–266.Google Scholar
  38. White, M. A., Thornton, P. E., & Running, S. W. (1997). A continental phenology model for monitoring vegetation responses to inter-annual climatic variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 11, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittaker, R. H. (1972). Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 21, 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winter, S., Fischer, H. S., & Fischer, A. (2010). Relative quantitative reference approach on naturalness assessments. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 1624–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gherardo Chirici
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
    • 2
  • Susanne Winter
    • 3
  • Anna Barbati
    • 4
  • Urs-Beat Brändli
    • 5
  • Meinrad Abegg
    • 5
  • Jana Beranova
    • 6
  • Jacques Rondeux
    • 7
  • Roberta Bertini
    • 8
  • Iciar Alberdi Asensio
    • 9
  • Sonia Condés
    • 10
  1. 1.Università degli Studi del MoliseMoliseItaly
  2. 2.Forest Inventory and Analysis, Northern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department für Ökologie und Studienfakultät für Forstwissenschaft und RessourcenmanagementTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  4. 4.Università degli Studi della TusciaViterboItaly
  5. 5.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Reserach (WSL), Schweizerisches LandesforstinventarZürichSwitzerland
  6. 6.IFER, Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research LtdJilové u PrahyCzech Republic
  7. 7.Gembloux Agro-Bio TechUniversité de LiègeLiègeBelgium
  8. 8.Università degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  9. 9.Departamento Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, Centro de Investigación ForestalInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y AlimentariaMadridSpain
  10. 10.Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de MontesUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations